Dc Preservation League v. Department of Interior

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC PRESERVATION LEAGUE, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:26-cv-477-ACR v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, et al., Defendants. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER The Department of the Interior has progressed from removing the trees to removing the people from East Potomac Park. On October 18 and October 26, 2026, President Trump directed the Government to close East Potomac as of November 15. 1 Two days later, DOI announced it would follow that “directive.” 2 This means closing miles of paved roadway; trails and multi-use paths; fishing areas along the Potomac River and Washington Channel; the Hains Point picnic areas, playgrounds, and associated open spaces; a miniature golf course and three other golf courses; the seawall promenade; and the East Potomac Dock and Wharf Jitney. 3 President Trump directed this closure for one reason: so that work could begin on a new Fazio Design to replace the current East Potomac Golf Course. 4 This placed DOI in a legal bind. 1 See Dkt. 91-1 at 3; Dkt. 114-2 at 2. 2 Dkt. 111 at 2. 3 NPS, Record of Determination for the Temporary Closure of East Potomac Park South of Buckeye Drive, https://perma.cc/DH99-SUH3 (last visited Nov. 13, 2026) (Record of Determination). 4 See Dkt. 91-1 at 3; Dkt. 114-2 at 2. 1 It has maintained for months, and—all record evidence to the contrary—continues to maintain, that no final plan to redesign the Course exists. 5 It cannot well admit that it proposes to close the Park solely to begin work on a redesign for which, it insists, no final plan exists. And so in its Record of Determination announcing the need for the closure, the National Park Service does not mention the President’s directive. 6 Instead, it claims closure is necessary on November 15 because as of that date no operator will be on site to manage the Course and escalating safety issues require cordoning off the entire Park. 7 Plaintiffs have moved for a temporary restraining order, claiming these reasons are pretext and that the closure violates a spate of federal laws. 8 As to the former, NPS sua sponte terminated National Links Trust’s continued operation of the Course as of November 15. 9 It now cites the lack of an operator as of that date to claim closure is necessary. But that reverses cause and effect—by design. And the Government concedes this is not the full story. It has acknowledged that DOI terminated NLT’s work, in part, to follow the President’s directive to close the Park. 10 As to safety, NPS has determined that the seawall on the Park’s perimeter presents such a hazard that it must close the Park on, again, November 15. 11 But NPS has identified the entire 5 See November 13, 2026, Rough Tr. I at 6 (“There’s no final agency action to redesign the course, as we’ve made clear, that would require completion of NEPA and NHPA processes.” (cleaned up)). 6 See generally Record of Determination. 7 Id. 8 See Dkt. 139. 9 See Dkt. 111 at 2. 10 See Nov. 13 Rough Tr. I at 37–38; Nov. 13 Rough Tr. II at 34. 11 See Record of Determination. 2 seawall perimeter as a safety hazard since 2019. 12 Instead of closing the Park, NPS previously has addressed that concern by fencing off the zone around the seawall’s unsafe portions. 13 It has not adequately explained why that tried-and-true method will not work now. More telling, just three days before making the closure decision, NPS permitted over thirty thousand people to run a marathon around that same perimeter. 14 A disconnect to which Government counsel responded: [A] well-organized a race with thousands of people in broad daylight does not pose the kind of hazard that is posed by children walking in the dark on the deteriorating seawall, or lovebirds strolling in the evening, or anything of the other things that could happen there are fewer crowds, where there’s less supervision, where there’s less organization. 15 Maybe. But, even so, this does not explain why NPS now chooses to close almost the entire Park, at all hours, for an indefinite period. And chooses to do so as of November 15, the same date President Trump directed closure. The Court, based on the current record, readily finds that these explanations are pretextual. But that alone does not require granting Plaintiffs’ motion. What does is that in its haste to meet an arbitrary deadline, the Government has likely violated at least the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court analyzed the former at length in its Preliminary Injunction Opinion. 16 As to the APA, NPS’s regulations require, absent exceptions not present here, notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to the closure of a 12 See id. 13 See Dkt. 111-2 at 4, 7, 8. 14 See Dkt. 139-1 at 17. 15 Nov. 13 Rough Tr. I at 31. 16 See Dkt. 103 at 53–62. 3 national park. No such notice and comment has occurred. Moreover, the pretextual nature of the Government’s reasoning also likely renders the closure arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The Government proposes to close a historic park, daily enjoyed by Washingtonians of all stripes, indefinitely. This closure would irreparably harm Plaintiffs, who use the Park regularly for recreational activities. It runs counter to the public interest in utilizing national parkland. And the Government has not plausibly identified any harm it would suffer from a temporary restraining order that preserves the status quo pending further proceedings. For the reasons stated in its October 26, 2026, Preliminary Injunction Opinion, Dkt. 103, and those below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. 139. It ENJOINS the Government from closing East Potomac Park and the East Potomac Golf Course during the daily hours in which they were open as of November 14, 2026. It does not order the Government to undertake any active management of either. Further, for the avoidance of any doubt, the Government remains free, as it has since the onset of this litigation, to conduct repairs on any part of the Park and Course with any notice required by the existing Preliminary Injunction. BACKGROUND The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the Background set out in its previous Preliminary Injunction Opinion, see Dkt. 103 at 7–23. It runs through only the factual developments that have occurred since it issued that opinion. October 26. At 8:28 p.m., the Court issued its Preliminary Injunction, enjoining tree removal on the Course and requiring notification before DOI or NPS took certain other actions there. See Dkt. 103. About three hours later, President Trump posted to Truth Social: “We are closing the East Potomac Golf Course Site as scheduled on November 15th,” and, “[t]he 4 Development of this World Championship Public Facility must begin, immediately, if it is to be completed in a timely and seasonal manner.” Dkt. 114-2 at 2. October 28. The Government informed the Court that it planned to shut down East Potomac Park, including East Potomac Golf Course, south of Buckeye Drive on November 15, “consistent with the President’s directive.” Dkt. 111 at 2. On October 18, the President directed DOI and NPS to close the Course on November 15. See Dkt. 91-1 at 3. He reiterated that directive on October 26, as stated above. Despite the Government’s notification that it would close the Course to comply with the President’s directive, it submitted a declaration by Jessica Bowron, Acting Director of NPS, that she planned to close the Park, in part, to repair the seawall. See Dkt. 111-2 at 3–9. On the same day, NPS entered into a new lease agreement with National Links Trust, the Course’s current operator. See Dkt. 111 at 2. Under it, NLT will cease operating the Course as of close of business on November 15, 2026, but will continue to operate two other municipal courses in Washington, D.C. See id. In her declaration, Bowron stated that she also decided to close the Park because of NLT’s termination. See Dkt. 111-2 at 2–3. She did not explain, however, why NPS decided to terminate NLT’s holdover lease, why NPS does not have or cannot obtain a replacement operator, or why NPS cannot operate the Course itself. See id. October 30 and November 3. NPS submitted similar Concept Proposals for a redesigned East Potomac Golf Links to the National Capital Planning Commission (on October 30) and to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (on November 3). See Dkt. 128-1 (NCPC Proposal); Dkt. 147-1 (CFA Proposal). Those Proposals feature renderings of a redesigned East Potomac Golf Course identical to the “Fazio Design” shared by President Trump on Truth Social on October 18. Compare Dkt. 91-1 at 4, with Dkt. 128-1 at 1 and Dkt. 147-1 at 1. The Concept 5 Proposals confirm that implementing the Fazio Design requires “[t]hin[ning] interior trees to reopen monument views” and “thin[ning] vegetation” pursuant to the 2019 Cultural Landscape Report. Dkt. 147-1 at 47; Dkt. 128-1 at 32. That is the same type of thinning that NPS carried out on October 10, and which led to the Court’s first entry of a temporary restraining order. See Dkt. 79. November 12 and 13. On the evening of November 12, NPS informed the Court that it published on its website a Record of Determination for the Temporary Closure of East Potomac Park South of Buckeye Drive. See Dkt. 155 at 1. It submitted the Record of Determination to the Federal Register on November 13, and the Notice will be published on Monday, November 16. 17 The Record of Determination stated that NPS will close the Park “temporarily,” but did not provide any timeline. It stated only that the closure will “remain in effect until modified or rescinded by the Superintendent.” Id. The closure would include “all parkland and public-use facilities south of Buckeye Drive, SW.” Id. As justification for the closure, the Record of Determination listed (1) the unsafe conditions of access to the Course after the cessation of golf operations by National Links Trust; (2) an “escalating trend” of unsafe conditions on the Course’s buildings and grounds; and (3) the deteriorated seawall and adjacent walkways at the Park. It did not state, as the Government had announced on October 28, see Dkt. 111 at 2, that it planned to close the Park to follow the President’s directive, see generally Record of Determination. It considered, but dismissed, four less-restrictive alternatives: “[n]o action”; “[c]losure of buildings and recreational facilities only”; “[c]losure of the golf course while retaining roadway, 17 NPS, Temporary Closure: East Potomac Park South of Buckeye Drive; Record of Decision, Federal Register: Public Inspection, https://perma.cc/A2UK-883X (scheduled for publication Nov. 16, 2026) (last visited Nov. 13, 2026). 6 picnic, playground, or shoreline access”; and “[s]igns, warnings, and periodic patrols without broader closure.” Id. It did not consider extending NLT’s management of the Course, finding a new operator, or operating the Course itself. See id. November 14. The Government notified the Court that it published a Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form, for purposes of NEPA compliance, and an Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Historic Properties, for purposes of NHPA compliance. See Dkt. 158. Each document quotes the reasons for closure as stated in the Record of Determination. See id. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT The Court, on this preliminary posture, concludes that the justifications presented by NPS for the closure of East Potomac Park are pretextual. Acting Director of the National Park Service Jessica Bowron, in her fourth sworn declaration, informed the Court that she plans to “close East Potomac Park south of Buckeye Drive, including East Potomac Golf Course, effective November 15, 2026.” Dkt. 111-2 at 9. She did so, she stated, because the Course lacks an operator and the seawall surrounding the Park needs repair. See id. at 2–9. Later, the agency published a Record of Determination reiterating that closure is necessary for those same reasons. 1. DOI and NPS Plan to Close the Park to Further the Washington National Plan The Court concludes that DOI and NPS plan to close the Park to further the Washington National Plan. And it need not dig deep to do so. The Government concedes that the closure is “consistent with the President’s directive.” Dkt. 111 at 2. That directive came in the President’s Truth Social posts of October 18 and October 26. See Dkt. 91-1 at 3; Dkt. 114-2 at 2. As Government counsel explained, “when the President issued his Truth Social post[s] . . . Interior 7 saw that as a directive to close the Course, and they have taken steps to do so.” October 30, 2026, Tr. 28 (cleaned up). So the Court looks to those directives. On October 18, the President wrote, “Restoration work will begin on the Fazio Design on November 15th, when the old Course will be closed to play. The new Course will be opened in approximately 15 months.” Dkt. 91-1 at 3. On October 26, he wrote, “We are closing the East Potomac Golf Course Site as scheduled on November 15th in order to renovate and rebuild for Competitive (with other such projects!), Safety, Modernization, and Aesthetic reasons.” Dkt. 114-2 at 2. He clarified that DOI will “renovate and rebuild” in furtherance of “[t]he Development of [a] World Championship Public Facility” that will be “fully capable of holding Major Events such as The U.S. Open, The PGA Championship, The Ryder Cup, and The Presidents Cup.” Id. These posts present a problem for the Government. They indicate that the Washington National Plan is final and that NPS will close the Park to implement it. Both points favor granting Plaintiffs’ motion for another temporary restraining order. And so the Government reverse-engineers additional justifications for the Park’s closure: “because of safety concerns and because the course will lack a continuing operator.” Dkt. 147 at 14. All while it continues to assert that it will close the Park to follow the President’s directive: THE COURT: You’re carrying out the President’s directive; right? GOV’T COUNSEL: Uh-huh, and that’s the way the government works. Nov. 13 Rough Tr. I at 38 (cleaned up). 2. The Justifications for Closure Stated in the Record of Determination Are Pretextual At the November 13 hearing, the Government represented that NPS plans to close the Park for three reasons: the President’s directives, the lack of an operator, and safety concerns on 8 the Course and along the seawall. See id. at 37–38. To start, the agency’s Record of Determination—which must state the bases for the agency’s closure decision, see 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(c)—says nothing about the President’s directive to close the Park to effectuate the Fazio Design. At a minimum, then, the Record of Determination is incomplete, if not misleading by omission. It is also transparently pretextual. The Lack of a Golf Course Operator. Recall that, without any explanation for doing so, NPS terminated NLT’s role as the Course operator as of November 15. See Dkt. 111 at 2. In the Record of Determination then relied on the safety consequences of this termination to justify closing the Course. But why did NPS terminate NLT’s holdover lease in the first place? And why as of November 15? The answers: THE COURT: In stopping and ending the NLT work on the Course as of November 15th, [did] they do that as part of implementing the President’s desire to have the Course close on November 15th? GOV’T COUNSEL: They did it consistent with the President’s direction that the Park close on November 15, but they did it for the purposes outlined in the closure order itself. Nov. 13 Rough Tr. II at 34 (cleaned up). And so the Court finds, as a matter of fact, that NPS terminated NLT’s lease as of November 15 so that it could close the Park to effectuate President Trump’s directive to begin work on the Fazio Design immediately. And this explains why the Record of Determination did not consider, as a less-restrictive alternative, either extending NLT’s holdover lease or finding a new operator to alleviate the safety concerns it identifies. Escalating Safety Concerns on the Golf Course. The Record of Determination stated that NPS must close the Course because “[r]ecent NPS inspections document that the golf course’s buildings and grounds present numerous safety concerns due to their poor condition.” 9 In support, it cited a May 2026 East Potomac Park Condition Assessment that recorded 110 deficiencies at East Potomac Golf Course, including 69 rated Critical or Urgent. See Record of Determination. Sounds unsafe. Except Dr. Kevin Griess, Superintendent of the National Mall and Memorial Parks—who attested in May that he “plan[ned] to prioritize maintenance by critical needs,” Dkt. 48-1 at 9—testified in October that NPS had not addressed any of them, see October 19, 2026, Tr. 165. Indeed, since May, NPS has only removed trees and vegetation, fixed a fence, and discarded some trash. See Oct. 30 Tr. at 61–62. If safety issues in fact required closure, NPS would have closed the Course months ago. Yet NPS has kept the Course open unabated as usual since May, with conservatively over thirty thousand rounds of golf played. See Nov. 13 Rough Tr. II at 43. At a minimum, if public safety were at risk, NPS would have taken a step—any step—to address the safety issues it knew about. Recall that within just ten days, NPS was able to plan, muster the resources and staff, and execute felling over 400 healthy trees. See Dkt. 103 at 20–22. So NPS was not without ability or resources. And presumably would not prioritize removing healthy trees over the public’s safety. The Government’s response is that the “escalating trend” of critical safety concerns on the Course now demands its closure. Record of Determination; see also Nov. 13 Rough Tr. II at 38–40. But it cannot identify a single safety issue that has emerged since May that moved NPS to conclude that closure is required on November 15. See generally Record of Determination. And, again, had any truly threatening safety issue arisen, NPS would not have announced on October 28 a closure on November 15, the same date President Trump directed for the closure. It would have closed the Course immediately. 10  The Seawall. Move next to the seawall. The Record of Determination stated that “[t]he East Potomac Park seawall and adjacent walkways are also in deteriorated and hazardous condition.” True. But the seawall’s condition did not materialize overnight. NPS noted the need for repairs as far back as 2011. See Dkt. 111-4 (2011 Report) at 15–21. And yet from 2011 until October 28, NPS never suggested that repairs to the seawall would require the closure of East Potomac Park south of Buckeye Drive. See generally id. 18 It did not close the Park even though a 2019 report found that “[t]he entirety of the perimeter walkway at East Potomac Park is a safety hazard for visitors and staff.” Dkt. 111-5 at 9. And even though a 2023 report recorded repeated flooding. See Dkt. 111-3 at 134. Indeed, even Acting Director Bowron’s October 28 declaration, discussed further below, does not state that such a widespread closure is necessary for repairs. See Dkt. 111-2 at 9. The Government can limit closures to the immediate area surrounding repair work. NPS has repaired seawalls at the Tidal Basin and West Potomac Park without indefinitely closing those parks to all public use. See Dkt. 139-1 at 16 n.7. 19 And consider the tree cutting. Dr. Griess told the Court that NPS would limit “any temporary closures of portions of the Golf Course . . . to that which is necessary to ensure public safety in the immediate area of work being performed.” Dkt. 84-1 at 14. The Government’s conduct and prior representations undermine its claim that repairing the seawall requires the immediate closure of East Potomac Park. Acting Director Bowron has submitted four declarations in this case. She makes no mention of the seawall in the first three. 18 See also Dkt. 111-5 (2019 Project Scoping Assessment Report); Dkt. 111-3 (2023 Cultural Landscapes Inventory); Dkt. 111-6 (July 29, 2026, Seawall Promenade Condition Survey). 19 Dkt. 139-1 at 16 n.7 (citing NPS, Rehabilitate Tidal Basin and West Potomac Park Seawalls: Environmental Assessment (Feb. 2023), https://perma.cc/LQ96-AH2U). 11 See Dkt. 26-4; Dkt. 38-2; Dkt. 75-3. None. She does so only in her fourth declaration, filed on October 28. See Dkt. 111-2 at 3–9. That timing is important. It comes only three days after the running of the Marine Corps Marathon, a marathon in which, with NPS’s authorization, over thirty thousand runners circumnavigated the Park. See Dkt. 139-1 at 17. It comes only two days after President Trump’s second directive to close the Park. See Dkt. 114-2 at 2. And it comes on the same day that the Government gave notice that it plans to close the Park, consistent with President Trump’s directive to do so. See Dkt. 111 at 2. It cannot be that NPS permitted thirty thousand runners to risk—as Government counsel described it—“life and limb” by running on a road near the seawall. Nov. 13 Rough Tr. I at 43. To be sure, all agree that the seawall is deteriorating and needs repair. But the Government does not explain how the seawall’s condition affects Ohio Drive SW, much less the Course. Nor does it explain why it requires closing the entire Park—for potentially as long as three and a half years—instead of cordoning off areas that create safety concerns, as the agency’s photos demonstrate NPS has routinely done before November 15. See Dkt. 147-1 at 54; Dkt. 111-2 at 4, 7, 8. *** At argument, Government counsel resisted the observation that federal agencies would not knowingly put American lives at risk for no good reason. THE COURT: If there was an issue that the Government could fix, that would alleviate safety risk for individuals going about their daily lives, and they had the funds [to] do so and the ability do so, they wouldn’t let those safety issues [linger], they would fix the safety issues. GOV’T COUNSEL: It would depend on the nature of the safety issue, the cost of fixing it, [and] the number of people affected. Nov. 13 Rough Tr. II at 37 (cleaned up). The Court, hopefully not naively, has more faith in the federal government than that. If the safety issues NPS identified in the Record of Determination 12 in fact required the Park’s closure, NPS would have closed the Park or addressed the issues months ago. What explains the need to close the entire Park? President Trump has told the public: “Restoration work will begin on the Fazio Design on November 15th, when the old Course will be closed to play.” Dkt. 91-1 at 3. And, “[t]he Development of this World Championship Public Facility must begin, immediately, if it is to be completed in a timely and seasonal manner.” Dkt. 114-2 at 2. This work requires NPS to raze a substantial public roadway (Ohio Drive SW), reconfigure the Park’s picnic and recreation areas, and redo the entire Course. See Dkt. 147-1 at 1, 53, 55. All this, of course, requires closing the entire Park. LEGAL STANDARD To obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Where, as here, a movant seeks to enjoin the government, the final two factors merge “because the government’s interest is the public interest.” Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016). DISCUSSION The Court incorporates by reference its prior reasoning in its Preliminary Injunction Memorandum Opinion in its discussion of the identical temporary restraining order factors below. See Dkt. 103 at 31–70. The Court summarizes its prior holdings under each prong. Where additional analysis is warranted, the Court supplements its prior analysis. 13  I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits A. Standing For standing, plaintiffs must show (1) a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury; (2) caused by the challenged conduct; (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Diamond Alt. Energy, LLC v. EPA, 606 U.S. 100, 111 (2025). At the temporary restraining order stage, plaintiffs must establish “a substantial likelihood of standing under the heightened standard for evaluating a motion for summary judgment.” Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 878 F.3d 371, 377 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). “If at least one plaintiff has standing, the suit may proceed.” Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477, 489 (2023). Plaintiffs must also “demonstrate standing for each claim that they press and for each form of relief that they seek.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 431 (2021). The relief Plaintiffs seek in this case—an order prohibiting the closure of East Potomac Park—is different from the relief they sought in their prior motions. See Dkt. 139-1 at 41. And Plaintiffs raise new claims supporting their motion. See generally Dkt. 139. So the Court supplements its prior standing analysis as follows. 1. NEPA Claim Injury-in-Fact. In claiming that the Government failed to follow a statutorily required procedure (adequate NEPA review), Plaintiffs allege an “archetypal procedural injury.” WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298, 305 (D.C. Cir. 2013). But Plaintiffs must also show that their procedural injury is “tethered to some concrete interest adversely affected by the procedural deprivation.” Id. 14  Plaintiffs, the Court has already preliminarily found, have concrete recreational, aesthetic, and historic interests in East Potomac Golf Course. See Dkt. 103 at 42–47, 52–53. The Government’s plan to close the Course harms these interests. It prevents the individual plaintiffs, Dave Roberts and Alex Dickson, from playing golf. See Dkt. 8-4 ¶ 19; Dkt. 8-6 ¶ 26. And it would deprive them of their aesthetic and historic enjoyment of the Course. See Dkt. 8-4 ¶ 19; Dkt. 8-6 ¶ 26. Plaintiffs’ recreational, aesthetic, and historic interests also extend to East Potomac Park. For example, Dickson “often” visits to “drive around Hains Point to take photographs.” Dkt. 8-4 ¶ 6. He appreciates the “beauty” and “inherent appearance of the park,” including its “sight lines” and “360-degree view” of D.C. landmarks. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. And DCPL’s member Rebecca Miller “enjoy[s] going to East Potomac Park with [her] son.” Dkt. 8-5 ¶ 22. She “plan[s] to continue visiting East Potomac Park,” including to take her son bicycling, admire the cherry trees, and view the Park’s sightlines of historic landmarks. Id. Closing the Park in furtherance of the Washington National Plan would harm these interests as well. See id. Causation. Plaintiffs readily establish causation. The Government’s “failure to comply with its [NEPA] obligations is plainly connected” to its fast-tracked implementation of the Washington National Plan, including the Park’s closure, and the Government “might have [reconsidered the closure] if [it] had complied” with those obligations. Growth Energy v. EPA, 5 F.4th 1, 29 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam). And, as just discussed, the closure will harm Plaintiffs’ recreational, aesthetic, and historic interests. See id. Redressability. Plaintiffs also meet the relaxed redressability requirement for procedural injuries. See Am. Fuel & Petrochemical Mfrs. v. EPA, 937 F.3d 559, 595 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam). There is “at least the possibility” that the Government could change its decision to 15 implement the Washington National Plan, including by closing the Park, after conducting proper NEPA review. Id. (cleaned up). 2. APA Claims Plaintiffs also have standing as to their APA claims. Plaintiffs establish injury-in-fact based on the harm to their concrete recreational, aesthetic, and historic interests in East Potomac Park. The Government’s decision to implement the Washington National Plan by closing the Park caused these injuries, and an injunction prohibiting the closure would redress them. B. Final Agency Action Plaintiffs may sue under the Administrative Procedure Act for failure to comply with statutory requirements so long as the agency has undertaken a final agency action. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2)(C)–(D). A final action “mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and is the mechanism “by which rights or obligations have been determined” or from which “legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997) (cleaned up). The Court has already concluded “without hesitation”—and reiterates here—that final agency action “occurred at some point well before October 15, 2026.” Dkt. 103 at 35. It found that the “discernible course of agency conduct . . . reflects a discrete decision” by the agency that is subject to APA review. Hennepin Cnty. v. HHS, No. 26-cv-2460, 2026 WL 2426300, at *7 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2026); see also R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 174–76 (D.D.C. 2015); Dkt. 103 at 32–35. The Washington National Plan—although the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts have not yet approved it—has been proceeding apace. In October 2025, the agency dumped over 30,000 cubic yards of fill onto the Course, in preparation for its 16 future renovation. See Dkt. 103 at 28, 34. In December 2025, the Government terminated NLT’s lease, which allowed NPS to directly oversee Course design and maintenance. See id. at 28. In October 2026, NPS cut down hundreds of healthy, mature trees pursuant to the Tree Management Plan. See id. at 28–31, 34. And NPS has now canceled NLT’s holdover lease and will close the Park to the public—even Ohio Drive SW, a public road far from the damaged seawall and not on East Potomac Golf Course—pursuant to the President’s directive to renovate the Course. See Dkt. 111 at 1–2. Each of those actions determines rights or obligations, or has legal consequences, and each action is an “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” Wyo. Outdoor Council v. USFS, 165 F.3d 43, 50 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The Court reaffirms its finding that the Washington National Plan is final agency action. See Dkt. 103 at 32–35. C. NEPA Claim Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their NEPA claim as to the closure of the Park. As discussed in the Court’s prior opinion, see Dkt. 103 at 53–62, NEPA “imposes upon federal agencies a statutory duty to include in all proposals for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed environmental impact statement by the responsible official.” Earthworks v. DOI, 105 F.4th 449, 458 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). Alternatively, the agency must prepare an “environmental assessment” if it concludes that the action will not have a reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impact. 42 U.S.C. § 4336(b)(2). NPS has not prepared an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement for the Washington National Plan. Unless and until such NEPA compliance is complete, the agency violates NEPA when it implements piecemeal parts of the Plan. This is so even when 17 those parts have their own NEPA compliance documentation, so long as those sub-parts of the plan (1) lack logical termini, (2) lack substantial independent utility, (3) foreclose the opportunity to consider alternatives, or (4) irretrievably commit federal funds for closely related projects. See Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304, 1314–15 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see also Dkt. 103 at 59–62. For the reasons already stated in the Preliminary Injunction Memorandum Opinion, the Court need not defer to an agency’s definition of the “project at hand” where the agency has not drawn a “reasonable and manageable line.” See Dkt. 103 at 55–59 (discussing Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 605 U.S. 168, 190 (2025)). The agency has not done so here: the various components of the Washington National Plan that the agency seeks to carry out have occurred or will occur at around the same time, in the same place, and under the aegis of the same agency. See id. As discussed above, the imminent closure of the Park is one further step in the implementation of the Washington National Plan. So the Court turns to evaluation of the segmentation factors. The Government has offered two reasons for the closure purportedly unrelated to the Washington National Plan: the lack of an operator for the Course and repair of the seawall. Dkt. 111-2 at 2–9. There is no logical terminus to the plan to close the Park, because it does not logically follow that construction on the seawall, or closure of the whole Course, requires the closure of most of East Potomac Park. The Court has already determined that the Government’s explanation for the closure’s independent utility, increased safety, is pretextual—at least as an explanation for closing the Park, rather than the areas surrounding immediate safety concerns. Closing the Park also forecloses the no-action alternative, in which the Park and Course remain open to the public while seawall construction occurs. And finally, 18 NPS will lose revenue while the Park is closed. See Dkt. 139-1 at 22. Closure of the entire Park—which is in furtherance of the Washington National Plan—likely does not survive NEPA segmentation scrutiny. D. APA Claims Plaintiffs argue that the closure of East Potomac Park is arbitrary and capricious because (1) it violates certain NPS regulations, and (2) the Government’s reasons for doing so are irrational. See Dkt. 139-1 at 25–30. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both claims. 1. Violation of NPS Regulations “[I]t is axiomatic that an agency is bound by its own regulations.” Alon Refin. Krotz Springs, Inc. v. EPA, 172 F.4th 12, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2026) (cleaned up). And so an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it “fails to comply with its own regulations.” Id. (cleaned up). NPS’s regulations permit it to close a park to public use “based upon a determination that such action is necessary” for one of several purposes. 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(a). But NPS must follow certain procedures in exercising this authority. First, “prior to implementing . . . [a] closure,” NPS must “prepare a written determination justifying the action.” Id. § 1.5(c). Second, “except in emergency situations,” it must inform the public of the closure. Id. §§ 1.5(c), 1.7. And third, NPS “shall . . . publish[] as rulemaking in the Federal Register” certain closures, including those “of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, adversely affect the park’s natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, . . . or [are] of a highly controversial nature.” Id. § 1.5(b). About twelve hours before the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ newest motion, NPS published a late-breaking “Record of Determination for the Temporary Closure of East Potomac 19 Park South of Buckeye Drive.” See Dkt. 155. 20 That Record did not explain why the closure of East Potomac Park did not require rulemaking. Nor did it explain how the closure would not “result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area.” 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(b). Or how it would not “adversely affect the park’s natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values.” Id. Or even how the closure was not “of a highly controversial nature.” Id. Nor could it. NPS intends to close indefinitely almost the entire Park to all public use, including golfing, walking, picnicking, fishing, and biking. See Record of Determination. And by NPS’s own estimate, repairing the seawall—one of many purported safety hazards at East Potomac necessitating the closure—would take 2.5 to 3.5 years. See Dkt. 147-1 at 54. Government counsel could provide no potential date for the Park’s reopening. Nov. 13 Rough Tr. III at 30–31. Inescapably then, the “nature, magnitude and duration” of the closure would “result in a significant alteration in the public use” of the Park. 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(b). And because NPS is closing the Park to further the Washington National Plan, a plan to destroy the current historical course and replace it with a championship-style course, it will harm the Park’s “natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values.” See id. Last but not least, the closure “is of a highly controversial nature.” See id. As the Government has put it, “[t]he case at hand is a highly publicized matter which has drawn national attention” and “outrage.” Dkt. 151 at 5. NPS does not argue that an “emergency situation[]” justifies the closure. Dkt. 147 at 24; see also Dkt. 151 at 5. For good reason. Its conduct leading up to the closure announcement belies any such claim. For the same reasons the Court concludes that NPS’s stated reasons for 20 See also Dkt. 155 (citing Kevin Griess, Record of Determination for the Temporary Closure of East Potomac Park South of Buckeye Drive, NPS (Nov. 12, 2026), https://perma.cc/73XJ- MSBK). 20 closing the Park are pretextual, the Court concludes that there is no emergency excusing NPS’s failure to engage in rulemaking. NPS offers a single case supportin