A federal judge is weighing whether the Trump administration has acted unlawfully by sending letters demanding state and local officials remove specific voters from their rolls, withhold ballots from those voters, or segregate those ballots rather than count them — all actions alleged to be efforts to interfere in the upcoming elections.

U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg heard arguments Thursday over whether the Trump administration had violated the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants states the responsibility to oversee elections, and the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment by deploying coercive tactics to order state and local election officials to comply with their demands.

The plaintiffs — a coalition consisting of Democratic party organizations, Democratic congressional leaders, and an individual voter — have argued the letters sent to states with alleged non-citizens on their voter rolls pose a threat, but lawyers for the government maintain that there is “nothing in these letters that coerces action.”

Boasberg pushed back, at one point noting he took the language to be stronger than the government argued. “I would have thought, ‘wow, we better act here or we’re going to be in trouble’ as opposed to the idea that ‘it’s nice to get this letter, but there’s nothing we need to do about it.’”

Christian Dibblee, a lawyer representing the Department of Justice, noted there was nothing in the letter indicating a state would violate the law if it didn’t comply.

At times throughout the hour-long hearing, Boasberg appeared skeptical of the ability of the plaintiffs to bring this legal challenge and whether their claims were speculative.  He declined to immediately rule on the plaintiffs’ request to block the Trump administration from sending any additional letters with these demands to any other states ahead of Election Day.

Instead, he ordered the Justice Department to hand over to the plaintiffs by noon on Friday a list of all the states to which the department and the Department of Homeland Security have sent letters.

That list could help the plaintiffs prove that the Trump administration has effectively coerced the actions of states, especially if there is proof that those states acquiesced to the demands of the federal government. Boasberg told the plaintiffs they could file an additional brief using this information to support their claims by the end of the day Saturday.

Boasberg further indicated he will issue his ruling on the plaintiffs’ request for a court order — which would block the Trump administration from sending similar letters to other states — by November 2, just one day ahead of the election.

He gave the government an off ramp by saying the action could go away if it affirms it does not intend to send more letters.

“But until you say that and the threat remains, I will continue to hear from the plaintiffs,” he told lawyers from the DOJ at the end of the hearing.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit brought last week include a California voter, who has been a naturalized citizen for 20 years but fears he could be falsely labeled as a non-citizen and “unlawfully targeted” by the DOJ’s effort to remove voters from the rolls.

The coalition had asked Boasberg to block the Trump administration from interfering with the states’ rights to oversee elections.

“None of this is lawful,” the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing ahead of the hearing. “The Executive Branch enjoys zero authority to superintend state voter list maintenance, to supplant state determinations of who is qualified to vote, or to dictate who gets a ballot or whose ballot gets tossed aside. Congress has kept that duty with the States, subject only to modest federal voter list maintenance requirements, which the administration has declined to invoke as the basis for its actions.”

The Trump administration has argued it has a legitimate interest in combating voter fraud.

“This is an extraordinary lawsuit,” the government wrote in a court filing ahead of the hearing. “Defendants have identified evidence that non-citizens may have cast, or may be imminently casting, votes in the upcoming federal election in violation of an explicit federal law that prohibits such votes.

They also allege the plaintiffs’ claims are purely hypothetical.

“Any injury depends on a speculative chain of hypotheticals: that Defendants will send a future letter’; that a locality or state will comply (as opposed to declining to do so), that a court will order relief, and that the relief will somehow injure Plaintiffs’ electoral prospects,” they wrote.

The legal challenge comes after the Department of Justice demanded California segregate the ballots of 20,000 voters that the DOJ believed to be “likely” noncitizens. When California’s Secretary of State refused to comply with the federal government’s request, the Justice Department allegedly threatened the state’s election officials for “knowingly facilitating noncitizen voting” and warned they would face “significant” legal consequences. President Donald Trump later posted on Truth Social, warning, “They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!”

Almost immediately after the Justice Department sued California, asking a federal judge to immediately set aside the ballots they deemed cast by likely non-citizens and to verify their citizenship status before tabulating their vote-by-mail ballot.

On Wednesday night, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter rejected the Trump administration’s demands. The Trump administration appealed that ruling and the case remains pending.

The coalition is concerned that these efforts could expand to other states beyond California. The Trump administration has already sent a similar letter with a list of alleged noncitizens registered to vote to Washington’s Secretary of State.

“The Attorney General stated just days ago that DOJ is ‘looking at’ a ‘number of States’ as additional targets, both in the run-up to election day and in the certification process that follows,” the plaintiffs wrote.

They have asked Boasberg to halt an expansion of the Trump administration’s efforts, blocking them from “exercising ungranted authority or injecting widespread chaos” into the election “before DOJ reaches the next State on its target list.”

The post Judge weighs whether Trump administration has unlawfully interfered with state election administration appeared first on MS NOW.

In a blue county in a red state — that could itself go blue for the first time since the early 1990s — Abbie Kamin has been preparing for months to make sure every vote counts.

“From Day 1, the No. 1 priority was ensuring that every eligible voter in Harris County, that their rights are protected and that they have the right to vote,” Kamin told MS NOW.

As the Harris County attorney in Texas, Kamin is overseeing the legal response to any potential election interference for the state’s most populous county, where record-breaking early voting is already underway. She and her team of almost two dozen lawyers, including some she recently recruited from the Department of Justice, are actively preparing to respond quickly to legal issues surrounding the election as soon as they may arise.

“We have everything that you can have drafted,” Kamin said. “We have attorneys assigned for every different scenario, who’s handling what — but also to ensure rapid response.”

While she declined to indicate the specific scenarios her team was watching, she signaled that the past might be a precedent.

“We’re watching other states,” Kamin said. “We have our own experience from past elections that we are using to prepare.”

Kamin pointed to the federal government’s attempts to interfere with ballots, including the search and seizure of ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia, earlier this year, as well as the Justice Department’s recent lawsuit to segregate the ballots of 20,000 alleged noncitizens in California who were registered to vote.

She also noted the attempts and refusals to certify the 2020 election results, as well as President Donald Trump’s public comments about his intentions around the elections, including a call to send federal law enforcement agents to the polls.

In Travis County, another heavily Democratic county in Texas, County Attorney Delia Garza told MS NOW her office had hired election law experts as outside counsel to assist her team and had already obtained proper authorization to file litigation to protect the vote should the need arise.

“In this important election, we have consulted with our counterparts in local jurisdictions and taken extra precautions to plan and anticipate scenarios that may impact a voter’s protected right to cast their ballot,” Garza said.

A county attorney in a key battleground state — who wished to remain anonymous in order to speak about sensitive litigation planning — told MS NOW that their office is working around the clock to get ready for Election Day on Tuesday, and beyond.

“Every case will be fact-specific, but we do have pleadings drafted, everything ready,” that county attorney said. “We have a team of attorneys with the intent to protect the integrity of the elections and prevent interference, as we have seen these attempts play out in other states.”

Preparations like these are underway at the statewide level, too.

A spokesperson for one state attorney general told MS NOW they had a “brief bank” with motions ready: to have seized ballots or equipment returned, to stop immigration enforcement officers if they show up at polling sites, and to prevent the Justice Department’s election monitors from deviating from the law should they talk to voters, carry weapons into a polling location or interfere in any way with the casting or tabulation of votes.

Secretaries of state are having similar conversations. A source familiar with the planning of several Democratic secretaries of state, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive plans, told MS NOW that those offices also have “draft filings ready to go” and that the plans “include being ready and willing to sue.”

Their biggest priority is ensuring that voters get to vote — and that those votes are counted. They are preparing to respond to challenges quickly so there is minimal disruption to the voting process.

“Time is absolutely of the essence,” the person said. “Secretaries of state and attorneys general have done everything in their power in preparation for this moment to ensure that if something happens, they can react as quickly as possible.”

Several law firms and legal organizations are also preparing to intervene if necessary.

Elisabeth Frost, a lawyer with Elias Law Group who specializes in election litigation, knows firsthand about the legal challenges. She served as former President Joe Biden’s counsel during the postelection litigation in 2020 and litigated more than 60 lawsuits against Trump and his allies.

Frost declined to speak about specific legal work she is involved with now, but told MS NOW her team had “an incredible bank of knowledge” and “battle plans” for specific scenarios as they emerge.

She said her team was prepared to respond within a matter of hours to circumstances even her team of veteran litigators had never seen before, likening her job to that of a chef.

“You have to be ready to put together the dinner for the diner that comes in the door,” she said. “If you don’t, if you are just like, ‘no, I’m going to serve the thing I serve’ … you’re going to miss the mark.”

“One of the things that’s actually crucial in this moment, to be able to meet this historical moment, is to have a real deep understanding of all the things that could go on the table, but be nimble and able to arrange them properly and to put together the right bespoke response for the moment as it arises, and to be able to do that, frankly, on a breakneck schedule and get it right,” Frost said.

Another lawyer at a national legal organization, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive litigation matters, told MS NOW they had been preparing for the possibility of federal interference in the election that would require emergency litigation for months.

The person said they had a variety of legal pleadings and briefs drafted and ready to address issues such as the presence of armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement or FBI agents at the polls — or even to respond to attempts to seize ballots, voting machines or other election equipment, and for the possibility that the federal government could use “spurious claims of election fraud” to justify these seizures.

National political party organizations are preparing to enter these legal battles, and some already have. A group of Democratic party organizations and leaders filed a lawsuit last week, alleging that the Trump administration has been systematically seeking to erode confidence in the elections by asserting the right to dictate how states can administer their elections and bolstering their interference efforts through persistent threats and intimidation toward state and local election officials.

These organizations asked a federal judge to block the Trump administration from directing states to remove registered voters from their rolls, withhold ballots, or segregate or refuse to count ballots. They are also asking the judge to block the Trump administration from threatening state and local election officials. The judge has not yet ruled on their claims.

The Democratic National Committee, which was not a party to that lawsuit, is also preparing to respond to any issues that arise. In some situations, they have already filed the suits, including a challenge to possible federal agent deployments, so they can quickly file emergency motions to situations as they arise.

Dan Freeman, litigation director for the DNC, told MS NOW that the committee is also drafting template lawsuits for a variety of situations and expects to have them finalized by the end of this week.

“It is standard practice to develop template pleadings — ‘Mad Libs’ pleadings, if you will — and we will be prepared for the full range of contingencies that could arise next week,” Freeman said.

Preparation for potential election litigation is not a partisan issue. The Republican National Committee has established a robust “election integrity” program to respond to potential issues on and around Election Day.

While the RNC would not address whether it had litigation already drafted, Ally Triolo, the RNC’s election integrity communications director, told MS NOW its goals were consistent: “ensuring the rules enacted by each state are followed uniformly.”

Triolo said any legal response would depend on the facts and applicable state law, but potential issue areas could involve observer access, polling hours, electioneering, ballot counting and compliance with requirements governing voter identification and mail ballots.

“The RNC has attorneys, election integrity staff and trained volunteers monitoring developments and preparing to respond to specific issues as they arise,” Triolo said. “Any action would be based on the facts, the applicable state law and the available legal remedies.”

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment on these preparations for potential election-related litigation.

Back in Harris County, Kamin is concerned that the concept of following the law could become subjective.

Aaron Reitz, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, which includes Harris County, posted a video earlier this month, warning election officials, “If you violate the law, I will hunt you down and prosecute you.”

That announcement prompted Kamin, who insists that her team is “following the law to a T,” to hire another type of lawyer to support her election work: an expert in criminal law.

Still, she said she wouldn’t be deterred in her work.

“Our democracy is sacred, and we are going to continue to follow the laws of our state and our country rigorously,” Kamin said. “And we are going to defend those laws.”

Lisa Rubin contributed to this report.

The post Key election stakeholders have lawsuits prepped and are ready to hit ‘send’ on Tuesday — and beyond — if needed appeared first on MS NOW.

Three news organizations that sued the White House after President Donald Trump banned them from the grounds have amended their lawsuit. They are now asking a federal judge to permanently restore their access, not just to the White House but to other areas including the Oval Office and Air Force One.

The amended complaint filed by the news outlets — MS NOW, CNN and Politico — comes two weeks after U.S. Judge Timothy Kelly indefinitely reversed Trump’s ban and restored their access to the White House. Since that ruling, the Trump administration has continued to bar reporters from those three news outlets from the pool, which guarantees coverage of the president at all times.

The White House press pool was formed as part of a long-standing agreement between the White House and news organizations in which a small group of journalists agrees to cover the president — often traveling with him — on behalf of the entire press corps. On the days the White House has banned CNN and Politico from serving in the pool, other outlets have declined to fill in for them in solidarity.

Lawyers for the three news outlets argued the Trump administration’s restrictions surrounding pool coverage also violate both the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. They are asking Kelly to restore access to all three outlets as it existed before the ban was implemented for all presidential events designated for pool coverage.

“These exclusions reflect an unstated policy to carry out the President’s directive to take his viewpoint-discriminatory and retaliatory ban ‘as far as you can,’’” they wrote in the amended lawsuit.

They alleged that the president has explicitly said he wants to limit Oval Office access to news organizations that he believes cover him unfavorably, pointing specifically to a White House statement that said the banned news organizations have “no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office.”

The lawyers also specifically argued that the White House’s interference with CNN’s ability to perform its role as the primary television network for pool duty violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. CNN is in a unique position because it is the only one of the three affected organizations that serves in the primary television network pool — the group of five networks that rotate to offer real-time television coverage of the president.

“For 45 years, CNN has been one of the five networks that staff, equip, and bear the costs associated with the primary network television pool upon which the American public (and the White House itself) relies for real-time coverage of the President in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One and at the many other presidential events that due to size and other constraints simply cannot accommodate all members of the press corps,” the complaint says.

The lawyers pointed to the significant costs CNN incurs to perform its pool duties, including crews, equipment, staffing and travel.

“These substantial investments — which were made in reliance on the White House’s longstanding practice of honoring pool assignments — entitle CNN to continue to fully perform its pool duties when designated,” the lawyers wrote. “Defendants have deprived CNN of its liberty and property interests by interfering with CNN’s ability to perform those duties with no notice, no standards, and no opportunity to be heard.”

A White House official responded to MS NOW, saying, “No person and no journalist has a constitutional right to access to the President’s Oval Office, Air Force One, or other sensitive and private facilities.”

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Without the pool — particularly without CNN’s cameras — several of Trump’s recent events have not been covered in the usual way. CNN and Politico were both scheduled to serve as the pool for Trump’s trip to Mississippi on Monday. Once again, the White House barred them from traveling on Air Force One, and the secondary pool reporter — for a print, not TV, organization — had to step in to provide written updates of the trip.

The Air Force One trips also provide Americans coverage of critical historic events, the lawyers argued, pointing specifically to coverage of John F. Kennedy’s assassination and of George W. Bush during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Lawyers for MS NOW, CNN and Politico argued that restrictions on pool access affect not only the media organizations in question but also the public’s access to coverage of the president.

In a statement, lawyer Ted Boutrous, who represents the news organizations, told MS NOW, “Despite two court orders restraining it from implementing the President’s unconstitutional ban on CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO, the White House has continued to violate the First Amendment and due process by excluding those news organizations from areas such as the Oval Office and Air Force One — the very locations that the President most frequently engages with the press.”

“These exclusions, intended to punish and chill coverage of the administration that the President doesn’t like, make it harder for the press to cover some of the most important events in the world for the benefit of the American people. CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO will continue to fight to vindicate their rights to report the news,” Boutrous added.

The issue of pool restrictions has already arisen in the case through court filings and arguments, but it has not been a part of the question directly before the judge. The first phase of this case focused primarily on access to the White House itself as it existed before Trump’s ban. Until now, the lawsuit did not directly address pool access, but lawyers had made the argument that journalists need White House credentials to participate in the pool.

“The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue,” Kelly wrote. “And his announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it makes this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”

In the wake of the ruling, the Trump administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but that appeal remains pending.

Kelly’s ruling was somewhat of a foregone conclusion, because the D.C. Circuit has held that the White House may not arbitrarily deny a journalist a press credential since press access to the White House is protected by the First Amendment and may not be revoked without due process.

The issue of pool access is less settled, though.

Last year, the D.C. Circuit allowed Trump to block The Associated Press from covering the president in certain spaces, at least for now. That order found it was legal for Trump to restrict access to a news organization in invite-only spaces, like the Oval Office or Air Force One. That ruling paused a lower court’s ruling that had sided with the AP to affirm their access.

But that appellate ruling was only a pause in a lower court’s ruling, which means it is not binding legal precedent. That case remains pending, and there has been no final ruling on the merits.

Lawyers for MS NOW, CNN and Politico also argued that the facts have developed since the D.C. Circuit found that access could be restricted. They said Trump has held the majority of his press availability in spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One, and because of that, those spaces cannot be restricted to some outlets under the First Amendment.

“In 2025, President Trump made two appearances in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room where he fielded a total of approximately 51 questions,” they wrote. “By contrast, he held 95 press events in the Oval office where he fielded no fewer than 1,991 questions. On Air Force One and on the tarmac, the President made himself available to the press 70 times and fielded no fewer than 1,186 questions.”

“While the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room remains a critical forum for reporters to gather and report the news, of the nearly 5,000 questions the President has entertained from reporters in these traditional areas, 97% were either in the Oval Office or in connection with his travel aboard Air Force One,” they added.

These statistics, they argued, make pool access not only critical but guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The post MS NOW, CNN and Politico amend lawsuit, seeking to restore access to Oval Office and Air Force One appeared first on MS NOW.

A federal judge on Monday night indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from removing even a single tree from a public golf course in Washington, D.C. that President Donald Trump intends to immediately transform into a championship-style course. She has ordered the government to provide notice of at least ten business days before any closure or any “irreversible modification” to the East Potomac Park.

U.S. District Ana Reyes granted the request by a coalition of a preservationist group and local golfers to block the Trump administration from razing the course after the government abruptly chopped down hundreds of trees over a recent holiday weekend.

Reyes included one exception in her ruling, allowing the Trump administration to remove any tree or make any modification to an aspect of the park that is an “imminent threat,” as long as they provide both the court and the plaintiffs 24 hours’ notice and submit a sworn declaration from a senior National Parks service employee “attesting to the threat and the need of the taken action to address it.”

In her ruling, Reyes pointed to a dispute from the previous hearing, when — despite President Trump posting on social media that day that plans for the golf course were moving ahead — lawyers for the government denied that there was a final plan.

“At this preliminary posture, the Court finds that the Plan is final,” Reyes wrote, adding, “This is confirmed not just by the President’s and Secretary’s many posts, but also by the Government’s actions, not the least of which is the removal of hundreds of healthy, non-invasive trees on no real notice,” Reyes wrote in the ruling.

Reyes expressed frustration at the repeated disconnect between the government’s arguments in the courtroom and the president’s statements in the court of public opinion.

“Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting President. Not to believe him that a cabinet secretary has “developed” a federal land project. Not to believe him that the secretary’s agency will destroy a historic golf course already on the land. Not to believe him that ‘Restoration work’ will begin ‘IMMEDIATELY!’ Not to believe him that the course ‘will be closed’ for over a year. Not to believe what the President has repeatedly told the American public,” Reyes wrote.

“And yet, here we are.”

On several occasions, Reyes had declined to issue any sort of a ruling in this case, instead choosing to trust the government.

“The Court acts now only because the Government did what it assured all it would not do,” Reyes wrote. “Without meaningful notice to Plaintiffs or the Court, on October 10, it bulldozed hundreds of trees on the Course. It did so even though, as two NPS officials have testified, there was no urgency.”

“This is a big win that will rightly protect East Potomac park from further irreparable harm. We are grateful the court intervened to stop the Trump-Vance administration’s greed and lawlessness while the case continues, and we are eager to argue the case in court,” Democracy Forward CEO and President Skye Perryman, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a statement Monday.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment.

The coalition filed a lawsuit earlier this year amid reports of Trump’s plans to redevelop the course. They had asked Reyes to block the Trump administration from making any changes – including chopping more trees – without giving them and the judge adequate notice. They also asked for the same notice if the government plans to close the course.

Reyes had previously requested the government provide her sufficient notice before cutting down more than ten trees. She held a hearing last week— the second on the matter in a week — to determine why the government had defied her request.

During the marathon hearing, Reyes heard arguments over the plaintiffs’ request to restrict the government’s renovation work, as well as testimony from top Interior Department and National Parks Service officials.

That hearing happened the same morning Trump announced on Truth Social detailed plans to immediately close and completely overhaul the golf course. That announcement created a disconnect in the courtroom, as the government has repeatedly argued that there are no final plans for the renovation.

Both a top Interior Department official and the acting Director of the National Parks Service testified they had no knowledge of firm plans to close the course and begin renovations.

Reyes pressed the Department of Justice lawyers on the president’s announcement.

“So who do I believe, the President of the United States, or do I believe you?” she asked Robert Stander, a lawyer representing the government.

Stander did not directly answer Reyes’ inquiry but had affirmed earlier in the hearing that “the agency’s position is that there is no final plan.”

Throughout the hearing, Reyes demanded answers about the government’s decision to abruptly chop hundreds of trees with little notice after she had explicitly asked the government over the summer to provide sufficient notice if they planned to remove more than 10 trees from the course.

The government has maintained that the tree chopping was part of a 2019 plan to restore the course to its original design. But the plaintiffs pushed back on that claim, arguing that the tree removal is only happening now because of the president’s plans for the golf course.

Reyes was also skeptical about the timing of the tree removal.

Gregory Wischer, a deputy chief of staff at the Department of the Interior, testified that his team has been focused on “cleaning up the course.”

Both Reyes and Abbe Lowell, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, sought answers about how and when the decision to abruptly chop hundreds of trees was made and why the government did not inform either the judge or the plaintiffs about the plan until the night before.

But they never received those answers. Lawyers for the government repeatedly objected, saying those conversations were protected by attorney-client privilege.

“It is my understanding that his testimony will be that he was just going fast and hard on all projects,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said during the hearing. “His job as the deputy chief of staff is to move those projects along.”

Reyes pushed back on that claim. “There is no universe in which this all just coincidentally happened at the same time,” she said.

That assertion echoed her findings earlier this month when she temporarily blocked the government from felling trees and mandating they give three days’ notice before making any “irreparable modification” to the course. That ruling was designed to remain in effect through Oct. 26.

In that order, she expressed deep frustration with the government for defying her request to keep her informed.

“Breakneck speed to clear trees that posed no harm. The reason? Disputed. The budget? Unclear. The environmental impact? Unstudied. The urgency? None. Next step: bulldoze hundreds more,” she wrote in her ruling.

That temporary order marked the first time Reyes formally blocked the government from taking action regarding the golf course renovation. Since the case was filed earlier this year, she has gone out of her way to resist granting injunctions, instead choosing to trust the government would keep its word.

That trust was apparently broken after the government razed those trees over a holiday weekend. The government notified the court of its plans at 4:55pm on Oct. 9. The next morning — before the court could intervene — they had removed hundreds of trees from the course.

Reyes held an emergency hearing on Columbus Day. In the fiery four-hour hearing, she was livid, yelling at the government for their actions.

“I am just beyond disappointed in the government,” Reyes said. “I have done everything humanly possible to give the government the benefit of the doubt. I have done it for months.”

Trump’s plans for this local golf course – the latest in his series of construction projects – have gained national attention. East Potomac Golf Links was designed with accessibility in mind, to serve both diverse communities and the average golfer.

Many members of the D.C. community attended the hearing last week in support of the legal challenge.

During the hearing, Reyes alluded to the significance of the course to the community, saying this case is not just about a golf course redesign.

“We are talking about a historic golf course,” she said. “A place that has deep meaning to the people of the district, and is protected as a historic land site.”

The post Judge blocks D.C. golf course tree removal, orders government to give notice before more changes appeared first on MS NOW.

A group of Vietnam War veterans asked a federal judge to block construction of President Donald Trump’s 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, writing that the project — which Trump announced last year — still lacks congressional authorization.

“Defendants have barreled ahead, doing site testing, drawing architecture plans, and seeking approvals from commissions populated by friends of the administration,” they wrote. “Yet, throughout this time, Defendants have failed to obtain (or even seek) approval from the one body that, by law, must authorize the project: Congress.”

The request comes one day after the Trump administration filed a notice to the court, saying the National Capital Planning Commission plans to meet to consider for approval the final site and building plans for the arch on Nov. 5. They say construction could “commence immediately” after that meeting if those plans are approved.

The veterans asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to rule on their request by Nov. 4.

The case has been ongoing since February, but Chutkan has not yet issued a ruling that would block construction. In September she ordered the government to provide at least 48 hours’ notice before “engaging in any activity” around the site of the arch.

The government had previously agreed to provide at least two weeks’ notice before beginning construction of the arch. Wednesday’s filing complied with that deadline, coming two weeks ahead of the scheduled meeting and possible start date for construction.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment on the filing.

Thursday’s request to block construction is the latest development in a lawsuit filed in February by three Vietnam War veterans in conjunction with watchdog organization Public Citizen. They have argued the arch would significantly disrupt the historically significant sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and the Arlington National Cemetery.

“Its location on Memorial Circle would situate the monument on an axis between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, obstructing a line of sight that was designed to represent the unification of the Nation following the Civil War and that has existed for nearly a century,” they wrote in the lawsuit.

The veterans have also argued the project requires congressional authorization.

The Trump administration has argued Congress has already authorized the arch project, pointing to a 1925 plan that called for two tall columns — not an arch — situated near the proposed site for Trump’s arch. That proposal looked very different from Trump’s vision.

Trump unveiled his plans last October for a 250-foot Arc de Triomphe-style monument in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary. The original plans called for a towering triumphal arch that would dwarf the nearby 99-foot Lincoln Memorial and other monuments. The gilded arch would sit on Memorial Circle, a traffic roundabout that sits between Arlington National Cemetery and a bridge over the Potomac that leads to Washington, D.C.

Since that lawsuit was filed, Trump’s plans for the arch have developed. Last month, Trump announced the arch would become a “top grand Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and the plaza areas, and additionally have and hold hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”

But the final plans submitted to the Interior Department and to the National Capital Planning Commission make no mention of a military complex. There are also no references to a national security purpose.

“The proposed arch would be an approximately 250-foot-tall reinforced concrete structure clad in stone and ornamented by a central figure and two eagles, positioned above each arch leg,” the project synopsis says. “The arch would be 166 feet wide with a 55-foot-wide opening, providing views from the observation deck to area landmarks. The arch would be built from concrete and finished with granite.”

The commission is set to vote on this design in the Nov. 5 meeting and could begin construction immediately, if Chutkan does not intervene on behalf of the veterans.

The veterans’ lawsuit is not the only challenge to Trump’s arch. Earlier this month, the Arlington County Board in Virginia sued to block construction of the arch. That lawsuit alleged the Trump administration was moving too quickly, bypassing the full review process.

“The National Park Service, the agency responsible for projects on national park land such as Memorial Circle, is proceeding full-speed toward ground-disturbing construction,” the lawsuit said. “Although the agency has claimed that a final decision to construct the Arch has not yet been made and purports to be engaged in a routine decisional process, that rushed process appears to be a pretext designed to shore up justifications for building the Arch in accordance with the President’s repeated marching orders.”

That lawsuit also criticized Trump’s national security plans for the arch.

“Using the Arch to store large stockpiles of ammunition and as a staging point for drones and snipers, so close to commuters and tourists, will dramatically worsen these public-safety harms and the risk of accidents,” they wrote in the suit.

The arch, which would sit directly in the flightpath to Washington National Airport, has also drawn concerns from the aviation community. Association of Flight Attendants-CWA President Sara Nelson criticized the arch, warning it poses a dangerous obstruction in an already congested flightpath. That flight path is also still riddled with safety concerns following last year’s fatal crash involving a commercial airplane and military helicopter over the Potomac River.

The architects have proposed adding an eternal flame at the recommendation of the Federal Aviation Association to alleviate some of these concerns.

A judge has not yet ruled on the lawsuit brought by the Arlington County Board.

The post Veterans ask judge to halt construction of Trump’s arch appeared first on MS NOW.