Trump admin accuses judge in golf course case of 'error' and criticizes her decisions while asking court to rule against plaintiffs on preliminary injunction request

The Trump administration on Friday implored a federal judge to reject arguments made by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit over construction and tree-clearing at a public golf course in Washington, D.C.

At the same time, the government's 44-page motion in opposition makes several swipes at the judge's decisions, theories and actions.

In the months-old case, golfers and an environmental advocacy group sued, alleging President Donald Trump intended to "destroy East Potomac Golf Course and to build in its place a championship-style golf course suitable for professional tournaments."

Early on, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee, resisted entering preliminary relief for the plaintiffs, telling the parties that she did "not want to be the overseer of Parks and Rec."

In late September, the government hired a contractor to oversee at least part of what the plaintiffs had been warning about.

In early October, the Department of the Interior (DOI) removed some 529 trees, earning the judge's ire, as Law&Crime previously reported. Reyes accused Department of Justice attorneys of doing "your absolute worst" and angrily criticized the government.

"Breakneck speed to clear trees that posed no harm," the judge opined in a written order. "The reason? Disputed. The budget? Unclear. The environmental impact? Unstudied. The urgency? None. Next steps: bulldoze hundreds more."

Feeling somewhat vindicated, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Oct. 11, which the court quickly granted. On Wednesday, the plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction, arguing that their warnings were prescient.

"From the moment Plaintiffs filed this suit in February, Defendants have been saying one thing and doing another: insisting that there is no plan to destroy East Potomac Golf Course, but all the while implementing that plan piecemeal," the motion begins. "Now Defendants' implementation of that plan has indisputably begun inflicting irreversible damage to East Potomac Golf Course."

In response, the Trump administration says the plaintiffs lack standing and insists there is no plan to do what the plaintiffs say is happening.

"Plaintiffs' theory of standing is foreclosed by the Supreme Court," the government's motion begins. "And they cannot gin up a final agency action from amorphous events that have not yet materialized into a concrete, final decision."

After those introductory sentences, the DOJ launches into a lengthy series of complaints about Reyes' work on the case so far.

More Law&Crime coverage: 'You did not do your best': 'Furious' judge says Trump DOJ lawyers 'cost' government 'all its credibility' in golf course case, floats contempt

"Despite lacking jurisdiction, this Court has now violated bedrock separation of powers principles by demanding that high-ranking Department of the Interior officials be subject to wide-ranging cross-examination without any showing of exceptional circumstances," the motion goes on.

To hear the government tell it, the plaintiffs have already exhausted their deposition "bite at the apple" because they previously cross-examined DOI officials "on matters of little to no relevance to the TRO proceedings before the Court."

The DOJ says the additional discovery granted to the plaintiffs is an "error" by the judge "compounded" by other errors she made.

The opposition motion lists those errors as the government sees them:

On October 13, 2026, the Court entered a TRO based on a claim that Plaintiffs did not make, against an agency action they did not challenge, on a theory of harm and causation they did not present. The order prohibits the National Park Service ("NPS") from "fell[ing] any further trees on the East Potomac Golf Course," an NPS-managed facility within East Potomac Park.

As for the standing argument, the government says the plaintiffs simply "dislike the proposed changes" because they "enjoy the golf course as it is, and do not wish for it to change."

That dislike, the motion argues, is "not a basis" to bring a lawsuit because it does not "establish a concrete and particularized injury."

The government goes on to argue the plaintiffs oppose a "yet-to-be-finalized proposal to redesign and renovate" the golf course.

"Their complaint, even as amended, still relies upon speculation about what the Proposal will specifically propose, how it will be implemented and what it will consist of in final form, and how, if at all, the Proposal or its final implementation might cause them injury in the future," the motion continues.

But, the government insists, the tree issue is entirely separate.

"Plaintiffs' complaint nowhere alleges that the tree removal that occurred on October 10th, and would have continued but for this Court's intervention, is even part of the Proposal to begin with," the motion goes on. "The record demonstrates that it is not."