U.S.
Judge to Hear Legal Challenge Over Arch’s Constitutionality
A federal judge will hear arguments on Friday in a lawsuit filed by three Vietnam War veterans who claim Trump’s arch would “dishonor” the memory of those buried at Arlington National Cemetery by obstructing sightlines and overlooking the burial grounds. The plaintiffs, including veterans Jon Gundersen, Michael Lemmon, and Shaun Byrnes, argue the 250-foot structure violates federal law by lacking congressional approval. The case, Lemmon v. The project hinges on whether the 1925 legislation authorizing the Memorial Bridge applies to the current arch proposal. The National Park Service (NPS) has stated it “has no power” to build the arch without explicit congressional authorization, according to a letter from lawmakers.
The legal dispute centers on a 1925 law authorizing the Memorial Bridge, which the administration argues extends to the arch. However, veterans and preservation groups contest this, stating the law was never intended for the present monument and that Congress must explicitly approve such a project. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Institute of Architects, and other organizations filed an amicus brief arguing the project requires explicit congressional approval.
Opponents Cite Historical and Cultural Risks of Arch
Opponents, including the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, warn the arch would permanently desecrate the National Mall and violate the 1910 Height of Buildings Act. A Washington Post analysis found the arch would cast shadows over more than 2,000 graves at Arlington National Cemetery and block sunlight from the John F. Kennedy Eternal Flame. Neil Flanagan, an architectural historian, criticized the design for disrupting the open space between significant structures,
a principle central to Washington’s urban planning. The arch’s shadow would also obstruct memorials for veterans of the two World Wars for over 15 minutes, with the Military Women’s Memorial experiencing 22 minutes of darkness. The White House and the Department of the Interior did not respond to requests for comment on the report.
Public opposition is strong: a September poll found 52% of Americans oppose the project, with 41% strongly against it. Karen Meredith, whose son is buried at Arlington, condemned the arch in a video by advocacy group VoteVets, stating, We don’t need tourists overlooking funerals.
Jay Kalner, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America’s Northern Virginia chapter, told The Post that he and other local VVA leaders oppose the arch. The National Parks Conservation Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Institute of Architects, and other groups filed an amicus brief arguing that the project requires explicit congressional approval.
NCPC to Review Arch Design as Court Hears Case
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), a board stacked with Trump officials and allies, is scheduled to review the arch’s final design on November 5, the same day a federal court will hear arguments on the lawsuit. The administration aims to begin construction by November 5, despite ongoing legal challenges. The US Commission of Fine Arts has already given the proposal preliminary approval. The commission’s meeting on November 5 will determine whether the arch’s design is vetted, with final plans submitted to the group showing no mention of military features like drones or snipers, despite Trump’s earlier claims.
The arch’s fate now hinges on the court’s ruling and the NCPC’s decision. If approved, the project is expected to take about three years to complete, and would stand more than twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial. For now, the debate over the arch highlights tensions between presidential legacy, national security claims, and the preservation of Washington’s historic sites. The Trump administration has rejected allegations of procedural shortcuts, while opponents continue to argue the project violates federal law and undermines historical integrity.
