Judge sets deadlines before Nov. 5 vote as D.C. and Virginia sue to stop 250-foot arch at Memorial Circle

A federal judge on Sunday, Nov. 1, gave the government until 2 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 3, to answer a request by the District of Columbia and Virginia to block construction of a 250-foot triumphal arch at Memorial Circle. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan set the plaintiffs' reply for noon Wednesday, Nov. 4, and took their request for an administrative stay under advisement.¹

The government has said construction could begin as soon as Nov. 5.² In a joint scheduling filing Sunday, it agreed not to start until the National Capital Planning Commission's meeting that day, set for 1 p.m., ends and the Park Service issues a permit. The plaintiffs agreed a ruling is not needed before noon Nov. 5.³

The two governments sued Saturday, Oct. 31, naming the National Park Service, the Interior Department and two officials. Chutkan consolidated the case, No. 1:26-cv-03838, with an earlier suit, Lemmon v. Trump.⁴⁵

What the plaintiffs claim

The eight-count complaint calls the project "flagrantly unlawful."⁴

• Congress: The Commemorative Works Act and 40 U.S.C. 8106 require specific approval from Congress, and the government "has obtained none."
• Height: The Height of Buildings Act limits buildings on business streets to 130 feet.
• Review: The Park Service considered only two options, the arch or nothing, and did not start historic preservation consultation until June 5.
• Harm: The suit cites traffic through a circle used by more than 27,000 vehicles a day, emergency planning, stormwater runoff into the Potomac River and the view between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House.

Their motion seeks an administrative stay before Nov. 5, then a temporary restraining order and a stay once the arch is formally approved.⁶ D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said the project "is flagrantly illegal," and Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones called it an "illegal vanity project," Newsweek reported.⁷

What the government says

The docket shows no government response yet in this suit.¹ In an Oct. 28 filing in the Lemmon case, the government pointed to a 1925 law on the Arlington Memorial Bridge as "existing Congressional authorization to build tall structures surmounted by statues on Columbia Island" and said the Commemorative Works Act "does not apply to commemorative works authorized by a law enacted before January 3, 1985."²

The filing says above-ground work is not expected before May 2027 and construction would take 33 to 39 months. The government's brief, quoting a declaration by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, calls the arch "a generational national defense opportunity" against threats from small drones.²⁸ The complaint says the final plans do not mention military uses.⁴

An Interior spokesperson said, "The Department continues to follow all laws and regulations," Newsweek reported.⁷

Where the approvals stand

• The Commission of Fine Arts approved the final architectural design at its May 21 meeting, leaving out the sculpture, panels and statuary until they are designed.⁹
• The National Capital Planning Commission approved preliminary plans with comments July 9 and said it was still considering whether the Height Act binds the federal government.¹⁰ It is scheduled to consider final plans Nov. 5, the government says.²

The earlier suits

The Lemmon suit, filed in February by Vietnam-era veterans, according to ABC News, argues the arch lacks authorization from Congress.²¹¹ Chutkan heard argument Oct. 30 on a second request for a preliminary injunction and took it under advisement.¹ The Arlington County Board sued Oct. 8 in the Eastern District of Virginia, before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.¹²

What the records do not show

• Any ruling on the stay, the restraining order or the claims.
• The arch's cost or funding. The environmental assessment gives no dollar figure, and the fine arts letter and July planning action do not mention cost.¹³⁹¹⁰
• A release from either attorney general; their quotes rely on Newsweek.
• The Nov. 5 agenda, which we could not open; that date comes from court filings.