East Potomac Golf Course Case: What Congress Can Do
When Government Lawyers Tell a Court "There Is No Plan": The East Potomac Golf Course Case and What Congress Can Do
By Corey J. Biazzo, Esq., Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program · November 7, 2026
In short: For months, Justice Department and Interior Department lawyers told a federal judge there was no final plan to close and rebuild East Potomac Golf Course, a public course Congress set aside "forever" as a park in 1897. Meanwhile, the President announced a Tom Fazio-designed championship course and a November 15 closure, and the National Park Service cut down 529 trees on a Saturday after giving the court 12 hours' notice. On October 28, 2026, the government admitted in writing that the President had twice directed the park closed by November 15. On November 7, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes gave notice that she intends to appoint former U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu as a special master to investigate whether Justice Department or Interior Department counsel committed ethical violations. That inquiry belongs to the court. Congress should not interfere with it, but it can build its own record on the policy questions the case raises, and a Justice Department led by the President's former defense lawyer is unlikely to examine its own lawyers.
Key fact | Detail |
Case | DC Preservation League v. Department of the Interior, No. 1:26-cv-477-ACR (D.D.C.), filed Feb. 13, 2026 |
What is at stake | East Potomac Park and its 1919 Walter Travis-designed public golf course, listed on the National Register of Historic Places |
Claims | National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Administrative Procedure Act violations, including splitting one project into pieces to avoid review |
Trees cut | 529 on Saturday, October 10, 2026, after a 4:55 p.m. Friday notice |
Court orders | Temporary restraining order (Oct. 13); preliminary injunction granted (Oct. 26); government appeal pending (D.C. Cir. No. 26-5374) |
Ethics inquiry | Court gave notice Nov. 7 of intent to appoint Jessie K. Liu as special master under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53; objections due Nov. 13 |
What it is not | A criminal investigation or a special counsel. No court has found that any lawyer committed misconduct |
What Happened?
The record shows a widening gap between what the President said publicly and what government lawyers told the court. The dates below come from the court docket, hearing transcripts, and the parties' filings.
Date | What the government said or did | Source |
Nov. 7, 2026 | Court gives notice it intends to appoint Jessie K. Liu as special master to investigate possible ethical violations by DOJ or Interior counsel through Oct. 31 | Minute order |
Oct. 30, 2026 | At a hearing, the judge announces a formal inquiry into whether counsel gave materially misleading information; orders the names of everyone who prepared the closure proposal | Hearing; minute order |
Oct. 28, 2026 | Government filing acknowledges the President "twice directed" Interior and the Park Service to close the park by November 15, and that Interior, through counsel, had been developing a plan | Response to show-cause order |
Oct. 26, 2026 | Court grants a preliminary injunction; President posts that the course will close as scheduled on November 15 | Order; judicial notice |
Oct. 19, 2026 | Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the Department's third-ranking official, tells the court: "there is no plan to close the course" on November 15 | Minute order quoting hearing |
Oct. 18, 2026 | President announces Interior and Tom Fazio "developed a plan" for a championship course, with work beginning November 15 | Truth Social; judicial notice |
Oct. 16, 2026 | Government brief says there is "no final agency action" and "at most" the President has given "preliminary thought" to the plan; government also moves to disqualify the judge (denied) | Dkt. 84, 86, 95 |
Oct. 10–11, 2026 | Park Service cuts 529 trees in one day; counsel first reports a lower count for one zone, then corrects it by more than 200 trees | Declaration of plaintiffs' counsel |
Oct. 9, 2026 | At 4:55 p.m. on a Friday before a holiday weekend, government files notice that tree clearing begins the next morning | Dkt. 74 |
July 2, 2026 | Asked about the President's announced September 1 start, government counsel says, "There is no schedule in place at the National Park Service" | Hearing transcript |
June 28, 2026 | Interior Secretary Burgum tours the site with the President and Tom Fazio | Amended complaint |
What the court has found so far
Likely legal violations by the agencies. The judge found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their NEPA claim and granted a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction. Reporting on the October 26 opinion quotes her: "Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting President."
Evidence preservation. The court ordered an Interior deputy chief of staff to preserve his personal phone and all material about the course, and ordered the parties to propose a broader preservation order.
An ethics inquiry, not a finding. The judge said she was concerned counsel may have provided materially misleading information or omitted relevant facts. Whether any lawyer violated ethics rules is exactly what the inquiry will decide. The government may object to the inquiry and has appealed the injunction.
For fairness: the government argues the President's posts are not final agency action, that the tree removal was a separate safety project, and that the court has overstepped. Those arguments are before the court and the D.C. Circuit.
Why the Justice Department Is Unlikely to Police Itself
When Justice Department lawyers are accused of misleading a court, the Department's own Office of Professional Responsibility normally investigates. That office reports to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. Here, the lawyer whose statements are most at issue is the Associate Attorney General, the Department's third-ranking official, and the Attorney General is Todd Blanche, the President's former defense lawyer. (Disclosure: Biazzo Law publicly opposed Mr. Blanche's nomination.) The Department's Inspector General generally lacks authority over how its lawyers practice law; that belongs to the Office of Professional Responsibility.
It is also worth being precise about crimes. The federal false-statements statute largely excludes statements a party's lawyer makes to a judge in court (18 U.S.C. § 1001(b)). Perjury requires a knowingly false statement under oath, such as in a sworn declaration or testimony. So the main tools for lawyer misconduct here are court sanctions and bar discipline, not prosecution, and no one has been found to have done anything wrong.
That is why the court's inquiry matters, and why a congressional record matters too:
The court can address the lawyers. A judge can sanction counsel and refer lawyers to state bars. That is the court's job, and it is underway.
Only Congress can address the system. Whether the Department's internal discipline is independent enough, whether agencies can avoid environmental review by splitting projects, and whether Congress's 1897 promise for this park still holds are policy questions for Congress.
Candor to courts protects everyone. If judges cannot trust the government's lawyers, every case involving the United States suffers, under any administration.
What Can Congress Do Without Interfering With the Court?
The Constitution gives the judicial power to the courts. A judge's inquiry into the conduct of lawyers appearing before her is part of that power, and a special master acts as an arm of the court. Congress should respect that line, for constitutional reasons and practical ones: pressure on a pending inquiry would undermine its credibility and could hand the government a basis to challenge it.
What Congress should avoid
No pressure on the court or the special master. Members should not demand testimony from the judge or special master, or comment in ways that look like an attempt to steer the outcome.
No competing investigation of the same question in the same window. Whether particular lawyers violated ethics rules in this case is the court's question. Congress should not subpoena the same lawyers about the same statements while the inquiry is open.
No grants of immunity (18 U.S.C. § 6005) that could complicate any later proceeding.
No interference with the appeal. The injunction is before the D.C. Circuit.
What Congress can do now
Preserve the record. Send preservation letters to Interior, the National Park Service, and the Justice Department covering the East Potomac project, including texts and personal devices, consistent with the court's own preservation orders.
Oversee the policy, not the lawyers. The Natural Resources and Oversight committees can examine the decision itself: who ordered the closure, what review was done, what the Fazio arrangement involves, how the project will be paid for, and whether it complies with the 1897 law, NEPA, and historic preservation laws. Our investigative plan shows how to sequence that work.
Use the power of the purse. Appropriations can require notice, environmental review, and congressional approval before a park Congress created is closed or converted.
Ask the watchdogs. The Government Accountability Office can review the use of categorical exclusions to skip environmental review, and the Interior Inspector General can review the agency's decision process.
Wait for the findings, then act on them. When the special master reports, Congress can request the public record, invite testimony, and use the findings to support legislation.
After the court's inquiry
If the court finds misconduct, its findings become part of the public record that Congress can rely on. If it finds none, that result also informs Congress. Either way, the oversight that remains is about structure: how the Justice Department disciplines its own lawyers and how agencies make decisions about public land.
Turning the Record Into Legislative Findings
Legislative findings written into committee reports and bills justify congressional action, help new laws survive in court, and build bipartisan support when they rest on a court's own record.
Finding the record supports | Reform it justifies |
Government counsel told a court there was no plan while the President announced one | Require Justice Department lawyers to certify, after reasonable inquiry of the client agency, the accuracy of factual representations about agency plans, and to correct them promptly when they change |
Internal discipline of Justice Department lawyers runs to the Department's own leadership | Give the Inspector General authority to investigate attorney misconduct, or make the Office of Professional Responsibility report findings to Congress and the courts |
529 trees were cut after 12 hours' notice to a court hearing the case | Require advance notice to courts and Congress before irreversible changes to federal parkland under active litigation or congressional review |
The agency relied on quickly prepared categorical exclusions while plaintiffs allege a larger project was split into pieces | Tighten rules on categorical exclusions and require environmental review of connected actions as a whole |
A park Congress dedicated "forever" in 1897 is slated for closure and redesign | Require an act of Congress, or at minimum advance notice and a public process, before closing or converting a park Congress created |
Two guardrails apply. Reforms must govern the Justice Department and agencies going forward, not punish named lawyers, which is for courts and bars. And they should not intrude on the courts' inherent power to police the lawyers who appear before them. Our model Justice Department Integrity and Independence Act in the Model Bills for the 120th Congress is a starting point. See Veto-Proof Reform for building bipartisan majorities.
Let's Talk
We offer free, nonpartisan briefings to Members and staff of both parties on oversight that respects the courts, Justice Department accountability, and public-lands legislation.
Request a briefing → · corey@biazzolaw.com · (703) 297-5777
Companion Resources
Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program: every 120th Congress resource in one place
Open Letter to the 120th Congress: Restore Checks & Balances
Stephen Miller, Executive Privilege, and What Congress Can Do
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the East Potomac Golf Course lawsuit about? DC Preservation League v. Department of the Interior challenges the Trump administration's plan to close and rebuild the historic public golf course in East Potomac Park, arguing the agencies violated environmental and administrative law. The court granted a preliminary injunction on October 26, 2026, and the government has appealed.
Why is a judge investigating Justice Department lawyers? Government lawyers repeatedly told the court there was no final plan to close the course, while the President announced a November 15 closure. On October 28, the government acknowledged the President had directed the closure. The judge is examining whether counsel gave materially misleading information.
Is this a special counsel or a criminal investigation? No. On November 7, 2026, the court gave notice that it intends to appoint former U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu as a special master under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 to investigate possible ethical violations. It is a court inquiry, not a criminal one.
Has any lawyer been found to have committed misconduct? No. The inquiry has not begun, and the government may object to it.
What can Congress do? Respect the court's inquiry, preserve records, oversee the underlying policy decisions, use appropriations conditions, and pass general laws on Justice Department candor and discipline, environmental review, and protection of parks Congress created.
This post is public education from the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program, a nonpartisan public-service initiative of Biazzo Law, PLLC. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Biazzo Law is not a party to this case. The court's inquiry has not made any findings, and every lawyer and official involved is presumed to have acted properly unless a tribunal finds otherwise. Biazzo Law publicly opposed the nomination of Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Comments