A federal judge said Friday she would open a "formal inquiry" to determine whether attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute over a golf-course project — one of two plans revealing the breadth of the president's attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.

The two cases, unfolding at the same time in the same federal courthouse, also showcase the underlying executive-authority claims beneath them — a glimpse into the uses of presidential power under Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes declared that the court would appoint a "special master" to examine whether agency officials and Justice Department attorneys had made misrepresentations to the court — a marked shift from her relationship with the government until this month, when she had rejected numerous motions from plaintiffs to step in, saying she trusted the government attorneys. Special masters are neutral appointees, typically lawyers or retired judges, whom courts task with investigating specific disputed questions and reporting findings the judge can then act on.

The disputes involve an impending shutdown and reconfiguration of a historic public golf course, and the construction of a monumental arch that, at 250 feet (75 meters), would rise 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty measured from its base to the top of its torch. The two projects sit barely three miles, or five kilometers, apart.

Friday's hearing on the golf course change began as other recent ones have: Reyes grilled Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. — the Justice Department's third-ranking official — over how Trump's desire to turn the course, near the National Mall, into a world-class facility had become urgent plans matching his public pronouncements.

Reyes stopped the hearing several times and adjourned to her chambers to check previous trial transcripts as she questioned Woodward. Among the matters she wants examined: Was a National Park Service official told to exclude details from a court declaration? Did witnesses offer misleading testimony about the extent of plans in place for the course's closure and renovation?

At one point, Reyes read aloud the code of conduct governing how government attorneys must handle erroneous or false information during a hearing — a standard that echoes the duty of candor binding all lawyers in federal court, where material misstatements must be corrected and can expose an attorney to sanctions or referral to disciplinary authorities.

The judge ordered Friday's hearing after multiple posts by Trump on Truth Social, his social media platform, indicated that plans for the golf course existed and that construction was expected to begin Nov. 15. Trump said the park would be closed for 15 months while the work went on.

The presidential posts, which began Oct. 18, created a tense dynamic in multiple court hearings afterward, when officials from the Interior Department, the Justice Department and the National Park Service could not confirm the existence of the plans under questioning from Reyes. She eventually asked whom she should trust — a pointed question in a system where judges often lean on the executive branch's attorneys for facts the government alone controls. On Wednesday night, the Justice Department filed notice that the plans were real.

"On Friday, October 30, 2026, the National Park Service will submit to the National Capital Planning Commission for review a rendering designed by Tom Fazio for a World Class, championship-level golf course that is capable of hosting major events," the notice said. The National Capital Planning Commission is the federal body that reviews and approves development plans for Washington's federally managed land.

Reyes locked in on that filing and Trump's multiple Truth Social announcements as she questioned Woodward.

At one point, as they discussed plans that Woodward said had only come about this week, he slipped and included tree cutting as part of the preparation for the closure. Reyes responded immediately: "News flash." She then allowed him to correct himself, clarifying that the tree cutting — which occurred earlier this month — was not part of the plan to close the East Potomac Golf Links, the historic public course on land overseen by the Park Service.

The golf course lawsuit was one of two cases in court Friday dealing with the Trump administration's push to expand its executive authority as the president remakes the capital's federal areas near the National Mall and along the Potomac River.

Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was scheduled to hold a hearing on a motion asking her to call a temporary halt to plans to begin construction as early as Nov. 5 on the memorial arch — a ruling that will determine whether that timeline holds. The arch is opposed by a small group of veterans and an architectural historian who sued in federal court in Washington, saying Congress must endorse the project.

"The public interest leans heavily against allowing defendants to blaze ahead," the plaintiffs said in seeking the injunction. "This court should enter a preliminary injunction blocking defendants from beginning construction on Memorial Circle in the hope that they can render the arch a fait accompli before this Court has made a final determination."

Legal experts who have been watching the numerous cases underway say that what might appear at first glance to be vanity projects are in truth cases testing the limits of presidential power. Past administrations pursued legal theories that were sometimes legally sound and sometimes not, said David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

"But there was always the assumption that you would try to do things that were legal," he said. "What we're seeing here now is that if you think the federal courts can't stop you," you can break the law.

That, Super said, is "going to do long-term damage to the country."

The two cases now run on near-term clocks: Reyes' appointment of a special master sets up a formal examination of the government's representations in the golf-course litigation, while Chutkan's decision on the injunction will decide whether arch construction can begin as early as Nov. 5.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com.

Sources: Fortune · AP — Trump golf course renovation · AP — Trump arch · AP — America 250 renovations tour