In a 33-page opinion, Chutkan found that the project likely violates federal law, threatens immediate and irreparable harm, and that halting construction serves the public interest. The administration argues that Congress authorized the arch more than a century ago, under a 1925 statute. Chutkan called that argument "improbable." She also rejected the claim that the arch is needed for national security, noting that the government offered nothing beyond declarations from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and another official, Mullin. "These recent and unsupported attestations of security aspects... appear nowhere in the planning documents," she wrote.

The ruling covers a set of consolidated lawsuits. The District of Columbia and Virginia sued on October 31, and their case was joined with an earlier one brought by three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian, who are represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group. The veterans and the historian argue the arch would block the historic sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House. Chutkan found that Virginia and the District face certain harm, including significant unrecoverable traffic-management costs and possible disruption to emergency services. The administration must file a compliance status report with the court by Monday.

The planning commission, whose members are mostly Trump appointees, approved the arch after a virtual hearing of about nine hours. Witnesses who testified against it included veterans, historians and architects, and accounts of their number range from dozens to more than 100. The vote split along federal and local lines. Stuart Levenbach, the commission's vice chair, called the site "little more than a tired traffic circle." Kevin Lilly, an Interior Department official, had earlier rejected a request from D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson to delay the decision, saying, "We want a decision tonight."

Mendelson argued that the project lacks congressional approval and funding. He said lawmakers a century ago envisioned columns at the site, not an arch, and cited Trump's past remark that the arch would honor "me." Karoline Leavitt has called the design an "architectural masterpiece" that would "foster patriotism across political lines." Virginia and D.C. called the project "legally indefensible," and the plaintiffs called it "flagrantly unlawful."

The monument is meant to mark America's 250th anniversary. It would stand 250 feet tall and 166 feet wide and carry a 60-foot statue of Lady Liberty. That is taller than the 99-foot Lincoln Memorial and nearly as tall as the 288-foot U.S. Capitol. The Federal Aviation Administration approved the structure and confirmed it would not endanger air traffic at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Critics still warn of traffic jams, complicated evacuations and air-safety risks near the airport.

The Justice Department had said initial excavation could start as early as Thursday, with above-ground construction beginning in May 2027 and the whole project lasting 33 to 39 months. In a court filing late Wednesday, it said the contractor Grunley Construction "may be -- but is not necessarily" preparing for work. A vehicle linked to the firm had been photographed near the site.

Democrats, who take control of Congress in January after their midterm victory, have said they plan to make it harder for Trump to push through his Washington projects. Rep. Jared Huffman, set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the arch "a tribute to Donald Trump." Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., called it a "disgrace" and a "monument to the president's ego."