WASHINGTON (AP) — District and federal court judges in Washington are used to handling some of the nation's thorniest issues, from complex deportation cases to the fates of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants and more.
But in the nearly two years since President Donald Trump returned to office, they have been adjudicating a litany of cases challenging construction projects he initiated to remake the nation's capital at a breakneck speed. Judges accustomed
to parsing the Constitution are now being forced to decide how many trees may be cut down or whether paint tests can proceed.
Their decisions ultimately could determine how Washington is reshaped and could have a significant say on the limits of presidential power. But in reaching those conclusions, the judges appear to be growing increasingly frustrated with being thrust into what otherwise might be the purview of project managers, zoning officials or board legal counsel.
The docket of renovation projects has ballooned over the months, drawing in at least nine judges so far. Cases are now underway challenging, among others, Trump's proposed monumental arch where he plans to place drones and snipers; the potential destruction of the iconic Kennedy Center; a White House ballroom and the renovation of a public golf course that enthusiasts fear will make it unaffordable.
Together they highlight an increasingly mistrustful third branch exasperated by the president's behavior in pursuit of his desires. The evidence is in statements, rulings, orders and outright anger during hearings.
“The administration has created a problem where the courts are flooded with challenges to efforts that they have undertaken to satisfy one man’s ego,” said David Singleton, a law professor at the University of the District of Columbia.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The judicial frustration erupted into full view last week during a remote hearing over the Washington golf course that Trump wants to turn into a world-class venue. Plaintiffs argue the administration’s redevelopment would violate the congressional act that created the park.
Judge Ana Reyes excoriated a government attorney for the first 15 minutes of the hearing over what she said was the administration's deceit after it cut down trees at the course over a holiday weekend, with little notification to plaintiffs.
Reyes, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, spent months telling skeptical plaintiffs that she trusted the government and did not need updates on routine work.
"I am not the Lorax, I do not speak for the trees. I am a judge," she said at one hearing referencing a Dr. Seuss character. At another she said: “I don’t want to be the overseer of Parks and Rec. I’m no Amy Poehler.”
That reticence ended after the tree-cutting spree earlier this month.
"I trusted you all not to do precisely what you have done," she said. “Not only have you lost credibility, now we're dealing with this.”
In her memorandum, the incredulity continued as she summarized the hearing. “Breakneck speed to clear trees that posed no harm. The reason? Disputed. The budget? Unclear. The environmental impact? Unstudied. The urgency? None. Next steps: bulldoze hundreds more.”
The government responded to her filing and courtroom outburst by asking that she be removed from the case citing hostility toward the government and favoritism for the plaintiffs. Reyes denied the motion late Sunday, noting that before October she had rejected “about a dozen” requests from the plaintiffs that she issue formal orders against the administration. She denied them all. Despite the pending hearing, Trump announced Sunday on social media that the course will close for 15 months beginning Nov. 15 for redevelopment.
A judge asked to decide the fate of the Kennedy Center, which Trump added his name to and then a Trump-appointed board voted to close down for renovations, has repeatedly expressed frustration over the court's involvement in the project.
“Can it close for two weeks? Can it close for a season? Can it close for the summer while the air conditioner is being repaired?” said Judge Christopher Cooper. “You’re asking the court, arguably, to, you know, micromanage the Kennedy Center’s, you know, construction projects, which obviously I’m not in a position to do, and it’s not my role to do.”
Still, Cooper has been made to rule on those very things. He ordered the board to give 30-day notice of plans to demolish it, due in part to Trump’s public statements that it could be torn down if he is not given proper recognition for his efforts to restore it. Cooper has also blocked Trump's name from being returned to the building.
Charles Birnbaum, founding president and CEO of The Cultural Landscape Foundation, a Washington-based advocacy organization and a plaintiff in the Kennedy Center lawsuit, said the courts, and the public, were “growing weary” of “the administration’s spurious claims of absolute authority.”
The judges' frustrations have also centered around the speed with which the administration is pushing ahead on the projects with little regard for the approvals needed to pursue such work.
Trump tore down the White House's East Wing last year to make room for a ballroom, which the administration argues is needed to address national security concerns. Plaintiffs, who argued that Trump has no unilateral authority to undertake the work, accused the White House of trying to “outrun the courts” by accelerating construction.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the case against Trump's Washington arch, referred to the ballroom circumstances in one hearing.
“The president has said he’s getting his arch,” said Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee. "And as we’ve seen from Judge (Richard) Leon’s case with the White House ballroom, the president tends to get what he wants even if it means that you wake up one morning and there are bulldozers demolishing part of the White House.”
Chutkan has also voiced skepticism of responses from government lawyers over her requests for details on plans for the arch, reflecting the judiciary's growing mistrust of the executive.
She said the lawyers “come in and they say, ‘I don’t know. I’m not aware of anything.’ But that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.”
"One would expect that you would know the answers to those very, very basic questions, which is: Is there any preparation for demolition happening? Have any contracts been awarded? Because all of that goes to whether — goes to whether construction is imminent.”
The judges' decisions could ultimately resonate far beyond the walls of the edifices and monuments they are ruling on.
Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, said the projects may seem “a little trivial.”
But, he said, they “go to the heart of the executive power and what kind of authority Trump can wield based on a whim."
___
Associated Press reporter Michael Kunzelman contributed to this report.
