Tensions continue to escalate surrounding the ongoing legal dispute over proposed construction at a public park and golf course in Washington, D.C., with the plaintiffs stopping just short of directly accusing the federal defendants of dishonesty.
In a 42-page motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), a coalition of golfers and a preservation group contend that the Trump administration’s conduct warrants judicial intervention to halt the government’s actions entirely.
“At its heart, this case is about the federal government’s responsibility as caretaker for America’s national parkland and its respect for the rule of law,” the motion reads. “That responsibility is not left to the whims of a deputy chief of staff, a cabinet secretary, or even a president.”
Since the lawsuit was initially filed in February, the case has shifted considerably as developments on the ground have unfolded in dramatic fashion.
The plaintiffs originally alleged that President Donald Trump intended to “destroy East Potomac Golf Course” and construct “in its place a championship-style golf course suitable for professional tournaments.”
Initially, however, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, declined to grant preliminary relief to the plaintiffs, informing the parties that she did “not want to be the overseer of Parks and Rec.”
The judicial climate shifted markedly in early October when the Department of the Interior (DOI) removed approximately 529 trees from the golf course, which forms part of East Potomac Park. The large-scale clearing drew sharp criticism from Judge Reyes, who accused Department of Justice attorneys of doing “your absolute worst” and issued a stern rebuke of the government during a hearing that ultimately resulted in a court-ordered freeze on further construction and tree removal.
Since that ruling, legal proceedings have intensified considerably on multiple fronts.
In mid-October, the Trump administration launched a pointed critique of the judge while simultaneously urging her to rule against the plaintiffs on a pending preliminary injunction request. The very following day, the government moved to have Judge Reyes disqualified, citing what it described as “histrionic” remarks made during proceedings.
In late October, farewell photographs shared by former White House press secretary Katie Zacharia appeared to disclose elements of previously undisclosed plans to repurpose large portions of the park for the proposed professional golf course. The formal development plans were filed on October 30 and were disclosed in their entirety through court filings earlier this week.
The formally filed plans are consistent with what the Zacharia photographs suggested.
Under the Washington National Plan (WNP), the park’s well-known cherry-blossom-lined bicycle path along Hains Point “becomes part of the golf course, in place of the existing lawn and picnic areas,” according to the filing. The filing further states that “the golf course extends to the seawall around the peninsula” and that “displaced recreation” activities , including “biking, walking, fishing, and picnicking” , will be “accommodated nearby” at alternative park locations.
With these revelations now part of the official record, the plaintiffs are urging Judge Reyes to intervene once more.
“If Defendants can destroy East Potomac Park and reshape it in whatever image they like without regard for law or process, then they,or any other administration,can do it at any other national park, too,” the TRO motion continues. “This case is also about the integrity of the judicial process, counsel’s duty of candor to the Court, and the government’s role in protecting these goals.”
Several days prior to the formal plan being entered into the court docket, the government filed notice of its intention to close the park on November 15 , a move framed as consistent with the requirements of the existing preliminary injunction.
“East Potomac Park will be closed south of Buckeye Drive as a result of the deteriorated sea wall that is currently crumbling into the Potomac River and is a safety hazard in a state of significant disrepair,” the notice reads. “This action is necessary regardless of the ultimate design of the golf course, given the significant safety hazards at East Potomac Park.”
The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the court should not accept the government’s stated “safety” justification at face value.
Drawing on the Trump administration’s prior conduct, the plaintiffs argue that the government’s track record speaks for itself. Specifically, the motion references a previous instance in which the government invoked an ostensibly legitimate rationale in an attempt to advance its redevelopment agenda in defiance of an existing court order.
“Just as the Court found that Defendants sought to justify their recent tree ‘management’ plan (TMP) on pretextual grounds when it was in fact a further step toward implementing the [WNP], so too have Defendants now purported to justify the imminent closure of East Potomac Park on the basis of an asserted ‘safety’ rationale that is so risible that even their declarant does not endorse it,” the motion continues.
The plaintiffs further argue that the Department of Justice is doing little to conceal its true intentions, pointing out that President Trump himself has “repeatedly announced” that November 15 is the date on which the government “will renovate and rebuild” the golf course.
Accordingly, the motion requests that Judge Reyes issue either a temporary restraining order or a 15-day administrative stay.
Leave a Reply