A federal judge on Friday said she would move quickly to decide a case brought by a group of Vietnam veterans in a bid to block construction of President Donald Trump’s proposed 250-foot triumphal arch in Washington D.C.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan heard from two of the veterans — part of a larger coalition suing the administration — on the impact of construction of what some have dubbed the “Arc de Trump” that is slated to tower over Arlington Cemetery, one of Washington D.C.’s most hallowed locations.

The coalition that brought the lawsuit had asked for a ruling by November 4 — one day before the government is set to break ground in Memorial Circle. The lawsuit has been ongoing since February when three Vietnam War veterans in conjunction with a watchdog organization sued the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argue that the arch would significantly disrupt the historically significant sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

They have also argued — and more crucially at this stage of the litigation — that the project lacks congressional authorization.

Since the initial lawsuit was filed, Trump’s plans for the arch have evolved. Last month, Trump announced the arch would become a “top grand Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and the plaza areas, and additionally have and hold hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin submitted sworn declarations to the court claiming that the project was necessary for national security purposes.

Chutkan pressed Justice Department lawyer Robert Stander on Hegseth and Mullin’s declarations, saying the justification had no detail or support and she needed clarity. Chutkan grew frustrated at not getting answers to her questions and at one point, told Stander that if he didn’t want her asking about it, the government shouldn’t have filed the declarations in the first place.

Asked if there were additional details on the national security purpose not already in the filed declarations, Stander replied, “There is not.”Stander cited a federal appeals court ruling that blocked the construction of the White House ballroom, calling the plaintiffs’ argument in this case a “generalized grievance,” which also seemed to irritate the judge. She pointed out that the DC District ruling had been paused, due to a Supreme Court decision that allowed ballroom construction to continue.

“You can’t pick the parts of decisions you like,” Chutkan told Stander. “You don’t get to buttress your arguments by picking and choosing from a case.”Other members of the Trump administration have also continued to point to the national security aspect of the arch in court filings, but the final plans for the arch that were submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission make no mention of a military complex. There are also no references to a national security purpose.

The hearing highlighted another federal judge growing clearly annoyed with arguments from the Justice Department’s lawyers. Earlier in the day and just down the hall in the same courthouse, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — who, after going back and forth with Justice Department lawyers in a fiery hearing — launched a formal inquiry into their conduct.

The group of Vietnam War veterans asked Chutkan to block construction of the arch earlier this month, arguing the project – which Trump announced last year – still lacks congressional authorization.

“Defendants have barreled ahead, doing site testing drawing architecture plans, and seeking approvals from commissions populated by friends of the administration,” they wrote in a filing ahead of the hearing. “Yet, throughout this time, Defendants have failed to obtain (or even seek) approval from the one body that, by law, must authorize the project: Congress.”The government has argued the plaintiffs lack standing to even bring the legal challenge, citing the Supreme Court’s emergency ruling that allowed construction of the White House ballroom to continue after they found the woman who brought that case lacked standing.

The Trump administration also alleged they would be harmed if construction cannot proceed, again claiming there is a national security purpose behind this project.

“An injunction would also disrupt a generational national defense opportunity to mitigate evolving threats from the proliferation of small, unmanned aircraft systems,” they wrote. “When such weighty government interests are balanced against the Plaintiffs’ asserted symbolic harms, no injunction may issue.”In September, Chutkan ordered the government to provide at least 48 hours’ notice before “engaging in any activity” around the site of the arch. The government had previously agreed to provide at least two weeks’ notice before beginning construction of the arch.

The Trump administration has argued Congress already authorized the project, pointing to a 1925 plan that called for two tall columns – not an arch – situated near the proposed site for Trump’s arch. That congressionally-approved plan looked very different from Trump’s current plans.

Trump unveiled his plans last October for a 250-foot Arc de Triomphe-style monument in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary. The original plans called for a towering triumphal arch that would dwarf the nearby 99-foot Lincoln Memorial and other monuments. The gilded arch would sit on Memorial Circle, a traffic roundabout that sits between Arlington National Cemetery and a bridge over the Potomac that leads to Washington, D.C.

This lawsuit brought by the veterans is not the only challenge to Trump’s arch. Earlier this month, the Arlington County Board in Virginia sued to block construction of the arch. That lawsuit alleged the Trump administration was moving too quickly, bypassing the full review process. A judge has not yet ruled on the lawsuit brought by the Arlington County Board.