President Donald Trump displays an image of the proposed Triumphal Arch on the South Lawn during the White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday, April 6, 2026 (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images).
The Trump administration late Friday asked a federal court to reject a request for a second preliminary injunction that would halt plans to build a “majestic” 250-foot arch over a traffic roundabout near the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery.
In a 44-page opposition motion, the U.S. Department of Justice urged the Eastern District of Virginia — widely known in legal circles as the “Rocket Docket” because of its rapid pace — to rule against the plaintiff.
“Plaintiff lacks standing and, even if it could establish standing, the arch fulfills a century-old congressional vision authorizing the redesign and construction of 166-foot-tall columns surmounted by statues at that site,” the government wrote.
In its 35-page lawsuit, filed in early October, the Arlington County Board of Arlington County, Virginia, accused the Trump administration of prioritizing efforts to reshape the Nation’s Capital “in President Trump’s image and based on his whims,” while destroying historically significant public spaces.
The board argues in three causes of action that the proposed arch violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing federal agency conduct. In particular, it claims the National Park Service conducted a “cursory and conclusory” environmental review that failed to comply with federal requirements.
Earlier this month, the plaintiff submitted a 42-page motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that construction should be paused before work begins.
“This Arch will dwarf Paris’s Arc de Triomphe and directly obstruct the sight line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery that was deliberately created to symbolize the nation’s post-Civil War reunification,” the motion states. “NPS’s decision is unlawful and should be enjoined so the agency cannot begin potentially irreparable ground-disturbing activity while this litigation is pending.”
The DOJ now argues that the county board lacks the legal authority to bring the case.
“Plaintiff lacks Article III standing,” the government’s opposition states. “Arlington County cannot sue the federal government as parens patriae on behalf of its citizens.”
The government is also challenging any attempt by the board to sue on behalf of county residents, a legal theory the U.S. Supreme Court recently viewed unfavorably.
KEEP READING: White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting Suspect Charged With Terrorism
“Plaintiff therefore cannot establish standing by relying on longer commutes, decreased private property values, aircraft noise, diminished appeal of recreational areas, the County becoming a ‘less desirable place to live,’ or other injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff’s residents who are not before the court,” the motion states, citing several harms identified by the board.
The board previously acknowledged that the traffic circle is located in Washington, D.C., but argued that it sits on the Virginia side of the Potomac River, directly adjacent to Arlington County and bordering county-owned land.
The federal government maintains that proximity is insufficient, contending that the alleged harms are indirect and too attenuated to constitute the injury required for standing.
The DOJ’s opposition also challenges the substance of the county’s broader claims. “NPS has authority to build the Arch under the 1925 Authorization Act and NPS’s Organic Act,” the motion states. When Congress authorizes a project “in accordance with” plans described in a report to Congress, the executive branch generally retains “considerable discretion” to revise elements of the design. In this case, the government says, the 1925 Authorization Act expressly gave the relevant commission authority to make changes.
The motion further explains its position:
Plaintiff is thus wrong that the Authorization Act does not authorize the Arch. And Plaintiff is wrong that the Authorization Act precludes design updates, such as an arch of 166 feet plus statues on top instead of columns of 166 feet plus statues on top. The original pylons envisioned at the Washington entrance to the bridge gave way to gold equestrian statues; the “stately columns” “surmounted by statues” can also give way to a different element on Memorial Circle under the Act’s authorization to make design changes “as in its discretion may be found to be necessary or advisable.” Plaintiff has not shown otherwise.
“Plaintiffs’ disagreement with the agency’s decision, however strongly felt, does not establish illegality, irreparable harm, or any other need for a preliminary injunction,” the DOJ states in a summary of its arguments.
For the time being, construction of the arch remains on hold.
Questions surrounding legal standing are also likely to shape future proceedings, not only in the current case.
The day before the board filed its initial petition, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order for plaintiffs in a separate case. Those plaintiffs include both the federal district and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The post ‘Plaintiff lacks standing’: Trump administration asks federal court to reject another injunction blocking construction of a ‘majestic’ 250-foot arch in Washington first appeared on Law & Crime.
