D.C. and Virginia Sue to Block Trump’s Triumphal Arch

D.C. and Virginia Sue to Block Trump’s Triumphal Arch

Add another one to the pile. Two Democratic attorneys general are suing to stop President Donald Trump’s proposed 250-foot triumphal arch, and their complaint looks designed to get around the standing problem that sank the ballroom challenge.

D.C. and Virginia filed suit Saturday to block the monument at Memorial Circle, near Arlington National Cemetery. The clock is the point. The administration says construction could begin as early as Thursday, November 5, if the National Capital Planning Commission approves the final plans that day.

The case went straight to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the same judge who presided over the federal 2020 election case against Trump. She consolidated it with an existing challenge brought by three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian. Chutkan held a hearing Friday and did not immediately rule on halting the project, though she said she would move expeditiously. 

Trump, who says the arch will commemorate America’s 250th birthday, brushed off the suit at a Halloween event at Mar-a-Lago.

“They’ve sued me on everything. They’ve lost every lawsuit.” 

That is the president’s characterization, not a judicial finding, and judges have pushed back on parts of his Washington makeover, including an injunction over the Kennedy Center closure. (AP)

D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb and Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones call the project “flagrantly unlawful.” They argue that it lacks congressional authorization, nearly doubles the District’s 130-foot height limit, and skips required reviews. The kitchen-sink portion of the complaint adds aviation risk, stormwater runoff, two endangered bat species, and the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House. The question to watch is whether the Height Act reaches a federal monument on federal land. 

The traffic claims are where the lawyering gets interesting. The lawsuit alleges that construction would close portions of Memorial Circle and reduce Memorial Bridge to two westbound lanes, interfering with emergency services and evacuation routes during a construction period lasting two to three years.

Those allegations are doing legal work. This summer the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a historic preservationist likely could not show she would be harmed by Trump’s White House ballroom, clearing the way for construction. D.C. and Virginia now claim “indisputable standing” because the harms land on them directly. It is a transparent effort to plead around the ballroom ruling. The administration acknowledges disruptions and adverse effects on historic views but maintains they do not justify stopping the project. 

This is no mere ornamental gateway. Plans include an observation deck, offices, elevators, and a winged bronze Lady Liberty carrying an eternal flame. Administration officials also say the structure will serve a national security function.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle defended it as a tribute to military sacrifice:

“It will serve as a gateway to Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike.”

Chutkan was unmoved. She asked what harm the government would suffer “apart from the executive’s desire to bedazzle the city,” and wanted to know, “What is the rush to put this arch up?” 

For now, the arch exists on paper. D.C. leaders did not sue over the ballroom or the East Potomac golf course, so the arch is evidently where they decided to draw the line. Whether it gets any further may depend on which arrives first Thursday: permission to build it or a court order telling the administration to put down the shovel.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.