Judge Orders Trump Administration to Answer for Tree Removals at D.C. Golf Course

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, it is judicial activism. The NPS had a plan in place to do this working on it for six years plus. They were finally ready to move forward when, last minute, a plaintiff files to stop them on bullshit grounds and shops a Trump hating judge to side with them.


The court has no authority to be the manager of this project--NONE. This asshole of a judge has overstepped her authority. She is not part of the administration and has no legal standing to decide how the project will be carried out other than to rule on the basis of factual law. That is not what she's doing. She is micromanaging the project with that 10 tree bullshit.


Good! The NPS has a solid plan and it should be carried out expeditiously and cost effectively. Fuck that asshole judge.


Yes she did. The plaintiffs were a last-minute attempt to stop the project. This judge obviously knew she couldn't just outright stop it so she did the next best thing: Throw obstacles in the path of progress. Why 10 trees and not 20? Why limit the number cut down but allow some to be cut down? This is nothing but a delay tactic.

Again, this judge grossly overstepped her authority and is an asshole that should be ignored.

WTF? You are completely ignorant of the fact that this lawsuit was filed in Feb and has been ongoing. NPS agreed that they would start no work without adequate notice to the court and the plaintiffs. In their filing on 10/9 they say that.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72278895/74/dc-preservation-league-v-department-of-interior/

If you think informing the court after 7pm on a Friday that work will be happening on Saturday is adequate notice then you would fit right in with this administration and their antics. Courts on the other hand tend to frown on that kind of attempts to get around them. The work wasn't an emergency.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Good! The NPS has a solid plan and it should be carried out expeditiously and cost effectively. Fuck that asshole judge.

I'm curious if you think that it is cost effective to have work done over a holiday weekend when all those workers will be getting overtime pay and holiday pay. Not only that, a golf course is far busier on the weekend than during the week. Wouldn't it be less intrusive to do the work on a Tuesday morning when no one is likely to be golfing?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why is a judge even involved in this?

The National Socialist democrat Workers (NSDAP) will do anything to attack the enemy of the party. Utterly corrupt Obama judges (redundant) pull this sort of shit every day.

They don't go to jail or even get removed from the bench for their criminal acts, so why would they restrain from their corruption?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because it's federal public land that doesn't belong to Trump and isn't his to do with as he pleases

I mean, it's not like he's the PRESIDENT or something.

I mean, article II of the democrat Constitution states;

The executive power shall be vested in corrupt Obama Judges. They shall hold office perpetually as long as they serve the party, together with the leaders of the party in the House and Senate shall rule absolutely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm curious if you think that it is cost effective to have work done over a holiday weekend when all those workers will be getting overtime pay and holiday pay. Not only that, a golf course is far busier on the weekend than during the week. Wouldn't it be less intrusive to do the work on a Tuesday morning when no one is likely to be golfing?

Columbus Day is a "bank holiday." No one outside of government and banks pay any attention to it.

The private contractors doing the work view it as just another Monday.

But the party thanks you for your diligent demagoguery - Comrade.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Columbus Day is a "bank holiday." No one outside of government and banks pay any attention to it.

The private contractors doing the work view it as just another Monday.

But the party thanks you for your diligent demagoguery - Comrade.

I guess you didn't realize that the government is part of the government. Thanks for your cult rantings.


When was the last time you contacted a contractor on a Friday night and they were free to bring a large crew on Saturday? This is about the claim that it was all last minute so there was no time to tell the court earlier.

 

[Cypress]

I mean, it's not like he's the PRESIDENT or something.

I mean, article II of the democrat Constitution states;

The executive power shall be vested in corrupt Obama Judges. They shall hold office perpetually as long as they serve the party, together with the leaders of the party in the House and Senate shall rule absolutely.

^^ Stupid. You probably thought that was clever when you wrote it.​

 

[Jarod]

Why is a judge even involved in this?

BEcause it is land subject to federal laws, stupid.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

^ Everything you say above is WRONG.

Judges provide checks and balance. That is NOT 'judicial activism'.

That is NOT what judges are supposed to do. They are there to rule on matters of law as written. They are not to inject themselves into micromanaging federal programs or projects. Either what the NPS was doing was legal or not is the extent of what a judge should be ruling on. This judge was micromanaging the project.

It is a LIE to say this was "judge shopped" as the judge was randomly assigned from the pool by computer.

Judges are shopped all the time.

Judge Shopping, Explained

A quirk in the case-assignment rules for some federal court districts allows litigants to choose their judge.

www.brennancenter.org

Why are liberals and conservatives both outraged about judge shopping?

Constitutional law experts Dan Urman and Jeremy Paul talk about what judge shopping is and why it’s likely to remain contentious.

news.northeastern.edu

What Is Judge Shopping and Is It Legal – The Legal Guide

Judges MUST take cases when lawsuits are assigned and it is another LIE by to pretend that simply taking the case, they must, is activism.

Judges can be and are shopped. Once a judge has a case, they should be ruling on facts of law, not making shit up as they go or injecting themselves into running the government, but they do. This judge did that with the golf course case.

Second, the 10-tree limit wasn't an 'obstacle to progress'—it was a legal placeholder the Trump admin AGREED TO follow.

It is the judge micromanaging the project something she shouldn't be doing. Either the project was legal or illegal is the extent of her involvement.

Federal judges have absolute authority under the Administrative Procedure Act to halt executive actions if an agency is suspected of breaking the law.

The operative phrase is breaking the law. In this case, the judge acknowledged that the NPS plan was legal but put limits on how much of it could be moved forward with ("10 trees"). That is micromanaging the project, not determining its legality.

The judge didn't try to manage the project; she tried to manage a legal case. The only reason she halted the entire operation is because the government intentionally bypassed her order over a holiday weekend. You can't break the rules of a court proceeding and then cry 'activism' when the judge holds you accountable."

Her order was judicial overreach and should be ignored. She's an activist judge, like many Leftist judges are (there are ones on the Right too but it isn't nearly so virulent as on the Left). Once she determined the NPS plan was legal that should have been the end of her involvement.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

WTF? You are completely ignorant of the fact that this lawsuit was filed in Feb and has been ongoing. NPS agreed that they would start no work without adequate notice to the court and the plaintiffs. In their filing on 10/9 they say that.

View attachment 98461

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72278895/74/dc-preservation-league-v-department-of-interior/

If you think informing the court after 7pm on a Friday that work will be happening on Saturday is adequate notice then you would fit right in with this administration and their antics. Courts on the other hand tend to frown on that kind of attempts to get around them. The work wasn't an emergency.

That's judicial overreach. Either the NPS plan was legal or it wasn't. The judge acknowledged the plan was legal but then set limits on its execution. That is micromanaging the project rather than simply ruling on its legality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I guess you didn't realize that the government is part of the government. Thanks for your cult rantings.

I guess you don't realize that you're dumb as a stump.

Those doing the renovations to the course are NOT government employees, moron. They are private contractors who won a government contract.

When was the last time you contacted a contractor on a Friday night and they were free to bring a large crew on Saturday? This is about the claim that it was all last minute so there was no time to tell the court earlier.

ROFL

Every contractor in history has gotten Friday calls to have a crew out the next morning.

Have you ever held a job? Have you ever actually dealt with any sort of contractor?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

BEcause it is land subject to federal laws, stupid.

Either the NPS plan was legal or illegal. That is the extent that a judge should be involved. Judges should not be managing the project as that is the job of the executive branch.

 

[Uncensored2008]

^^ Stupid. You probably thought that was clever when you wrote it.​

It's clever enough to cause you to meltdown.


And I'm not dumb enough to think an Obama judge has the authority to rule the Executive Branch of the government.

You are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BEcause it is land subject to federal laws, stupid.

Izzatrite, fake lawyer?

Have you ever heard of something called "The United States Constitution?" Do you know what it is?

 

[QP!]

That is NOT what judges are supposed to do. They are there to rule on matters of law as written. They are not to inject themselves into micromanaging federal programs or projects. Either what the NPS was doing was legal or not is the extent of what a judge should be ruling on. This judge was micromanaging the project.


Judges are shopped all the time.

Judge Shopping, Explained

A quirk in the case-assignment rules for some federal court districts allows litigants to choose their judge.

www.brennancenter.org

Why are liberals and conservatives both outraged about judge shopping?

Constitutional law experts Dan Urman and Jeremy Paul talk about what judge shopping is and why it’s likely to remain contentious.

news.northeastern.edu

What Is Judge Shopping and Is It Legal – The Legal Guide

Judges can be and are shopped. Once a judge has a case, they should be ruling on facts of law, not making shit up as they go or injecting themselves into running the government, but they do. This judge did that with the golf course case.


It is the judge micromanaging the project something she shouldn't be doing. Either the project was legal or illegal is the extent of her involvement.


The operative phrase is breaking the law. In this case, the judge acknowledged that the NPS plan was legal but put limits on how much of it could be moved forward with ("10 trees"). That is micromanaging the project, not determining its legality.

Her order was judicial overreach and should be ignored. She's an activist judge, like many Leftist judges are (there are ones on the Right too but it isn't nearly so virulent as on the Left). Once she determined the NPS plan was legal that should have been the end of her involvement.

Again everything you say above is wrong.

No one is disputing Judge shopping can be done and is a thing so you posting it does happen in some instances does not make that the case here. It is NOT the case here where this is being heard IN EXACTLY the jurisdiction it belongs. You could not suggest a more appropriate one for this case. And the Judge WAS RANDOMLY CHOSEN. So the OPPOSITE of Judge of Jurisdiction shoping.

 

[QP!]

That is NOT what judges are supposed to do. They are there to rule on matters of law as written. They are not to inject themselves into micromanaging federal programs or projects. Either what the NPS was doing was legal or not is the extent of what a judge should be ruling on. This judge was micromanaging the project.


Judges are shopped all the time.

Judge Shopping, Explained

A quirk in the case-assignment rules for some federal court districts allows litigants to choose their judge.

www.brennancenter.org

Why are liberals and conservatives both outraged about judge shopping?

Constitutional law experts Dan Urman and Jeremy Paul talk about what judge shopping is and why it’s likely to remain contentious.

news.northeastern.edu

What Is Judge Shopping and Is It Legal – The Legal Guide

Judges can be and are shopped. Once a judge has a case, they should be ruling on facts of law, not making shit up as they go or injecting themselves into running the government, but they do. This judge did that with the golf course case.


It is the judge micromanaging the project something she shouldn't be doing. Either the project was legal or illegal is the extent of her involvement.


The operative phrase is breaking the law. In this case, the judge acknowledged that the NPS plan was legal but put limits on how much of it could be moved forward with ("10 trees"). That is micromanaging the project, not determining its legality.

Her order was judicial overreach and should be ignored. She's an activist judge, like many Leftist judges are (there are ones on the Right too but it isn't nearly so virulent as on the Left). Once she determined the NPS plan was legal that should have been the end of her involvement.

Second you are misunderstanding how federal courts work. The judge has not ruled on whether the project is legal or illegal yet—that is exactly what the ongoing lawsuit is trying to determine. And JUDGES do not have discretion to put aside a case brought before this happens

The 10-tree limit was a temporary injunction, which is standard legal procedure. When a plaintiff sues claiming an executive action is illegal, a judge puts a temporary hold on major changes so the government doesn't permanently destroy the evidence (the historic trees) before the court can even hold a trial.

If judges couldn't issue temporary limits, the government could just hurry up and illegally bulldoze a historic site or a neighborhood before a court date, making the entire legal system useless.

The judge didn't 'micromanage' a project she approved; she set a boundary to keep the status quo alive until a final ruling on legality can actually be made."

What you are saying is the Judge needed to stand down. Not get involved and allow one side in the litigation free reign to act and the other to lose without any legal process to take place. That WOULD BE judicial activism.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Again everything you say above is wrong.

No one is disputing Judge shopping can be done and is a thing so you posting it does happen in some instances does not make that the case here. It is NOT the case here where this is being heard IN EXACTLY the jurisdiction it belongs. You could not suggest a more appropriate one for this case. And the Judge WAS RANDOMLY CHOSEN. So the OPPOSITE of Judge of Jurisdiction shoping.

How do you know that? This particular judge is on the radical Left and well known for ruling against the Trump administration.

 

[QP!]

That's judicial overreach. Either the NPS plan was legal or it wasn't. The judge acknowledged the plan was legal but then set limits on its execution. That is micromanaging the project rather than simply ruling on its legality.

the error here is your inability to understand legal processes.

You keep repeating a major factual error: The judge has never ruled that the NPS plan is legal. That is the entire point of the ongoing lawsuit and yet you keep repeating this.

What you are calling 'micromanaging' is actually a standard legal tool called a status quo injunction.

When a citizen or group sues the government claiming an action is illegal, the judge doesn't just guess the answer on day one. Instead, the judge orders a temporary pause on any massive, irreversible changes—like cutting down hundreds of trees—so the court actually has time to review the evidence and make a final ruling.

The Judge has NO CHOICE but to get involved here and hear the two sides, and to pause things generally as they give time to HEAR BOTH SIDES.

The 10-tree limit wasn't an executive management decision; it was a legal boundary to keep the park intact until the trial concludes. If a judge couldn't do this, the government could just illegally bulldoze any historic site or private property before a court date, rendering the entire judicial branch completely useless.

You are burying yourself in your stupidity as you do not understand law and how things PROPERLY work thru the legal processes and system as this was.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Second you are misunderstanding how federal courts work. The judge has not ruled on whether the project is legal or illegal yet—that is exactly what the ongoing lawsuit is trying to determine. And JUDGES do not have discretion to put aside a case brought before this happens

The 10-tree limit was a temporary injunction, which is standard legal procedure. When a plaintiff sues claiming an executive action is illegal, a judge puts a temporary hold on major changes so the government doesn't permanently destroy the evidence (the historic trees) before the court can even hold a trial.

If judges couldn't issue temporary limits, the government could just hurry up and illegally bulldoze a historic site or a neighborhood before a court date, making the entire legal system useless.

The judge didn't 'micromanage' a project she approved; she set a boundary to keep the status quo alive until a final ruling on legality can actually be made."

What you are saying is the Judge needed to stand down. Not get involved and allow one side in the litigation free reign to act and the other to lose without any legal process to take place. That WOULD BE judicial activism.

The plaintiff had over six years to file a suit against the NPS over this project and only did so at the last minute. Maybe the case should be tossed on those grounds. The historical site plan is the one the NPS wants to return the course to. The judge already acknowledged that the NPS plan was legal as well, so why is the case ongoing if not her micromanaging things?

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2026/10/13/judge-furious-at-trump-admin-over-golf-course-trees/92230097007/

 

[QP!]

Either the NPS plan was legal or illegal. That is the extent that a judge should be involved. Judges should not be managing the project as that is the job of the executive branch.

And THAT IS DETERMINED IN THE HEARING TO COME.

The 'pause' which is DONE IN ALMOST INSTANCES LIKE THIS, allows for that determination. It would be judicial activism for the judge to not hear any motions or this case and just to pick a side as correct without that and without a pause to ensure actions are not taken