Case Summary and Outcome

Facts

In 1948, Congress enacted legislation creating Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in order to preserve historic locations connected to the American Revolution and the founding of the United States “for the benefit of the American people.” [p. 3] The statute authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative arrangements with the City of Philadelphia for the preservation and interpretation of the Independence Hall National Historic Site. It further required that any such agreement include a condition providing that “no changes or alterations shall be made in the property within the Independence Hall National Historic Site, including its buildings and grounds . . . except by mutual agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and the other parties to the contracts.” [p. 3]

Consistent with that statutory authorization, the City of Philadelphia and the Secretary of the Interior entered into a cooperative agreement in 1950 governing the management and preservation of Independence National Historical Park (1950 Agreement). Under this arrangement, ownership of Independence Hall and adjacent land remained with the City, while the Secretary, acting through the National Park Service (NPS), received the exclusive right to occupy and manage the property for purposes of public preservation, exhibition, and interpretation. The agreement also placed curatorial responsibilities with the Secretary. Over the following decades, the City and the federal government continued working together under this framework to preserve and develop Independence National Historical Park.

In the early 2000s, historians determined the location of the first official presidential residence of the United States, where Presidents George Washington and John Adams had lived while serving in office. Research conducted at the site also uncovered information about nine enslaved individuals whom Washington kept at the residence and periodically moved in and out of Pennsylvania to prevent them from qualifying for emancipation under Pennsylvania law. These individuals included Oney Judge, Austin, Christopher Sheels, Giles, Hercules Posey, Joe Richardson, Moll, Paris, and Richmond. Their names are memorialized within the President’s House exhibit. Historical records indicate that Oney Judge escaped from the residence in 1796 and ultimately reached New Hampshire. Hercules later escaped after returning to Mount Vernon.

Following these historical findings, in 2003 the United States House of Representatives encouraged the NPS to commemorate the President’s House and the enslaved individuals who lived and worked there, urging the agency “to appropriately commemorate the concerns raised regarding the recognition of the existence of the Mansion and the slaves who worked in it during the first years of our democracy.” [p. 5] That same year, the City of Philadelphia committed approximately $1.5 million toward developing a commemorative project at the President’s House site.

Congress later appropriated approximately $3.6 million to support improvements at Independence National Historical Park associated with the Executive Mansion Exhibit. During this period, the City and NPS began collaborating on the development of the President’s House project, including archaeological work at the site.

In 2006, the City and NPS entered into a cooperative agreement establishing the President’s House exhibit (2006 Agreement). The agreement governed cooperation between the parties in the planning, development, design, and installation of the exhibit and recognized that the City’s financial contributions served a public purpose by commemorating the site’s historical significance. The agreement was later amended in 2007, 2008, and 2009.

The 2009 Third Amendment incorporated a Project Development Plan defining the interpretive framework for the exhibit, based on an understanding that “it was finally time to tell an honest story about American history and the founding of this country and the role that slavery and enslaved Africans had . . . as well as the free [African-American] Philadelphians.” [p. 5] The plan provided that the site’s interpretation would address the residence and the individuals who lived and worked there, including slavery and the experiences of enslaved people seeking freedom. It also required written agreement between the City and NPS before changes could be made to the interpretive framework.

Funding for construction of the exhibit included approximately $3.5 million from the City of Philadelphia, $3.6 million from the United States Department of Transportation, and $3.5 million from the Delaware River Port Authority. The exhibit opened to the public in December 2010 under the title “The President’s House: Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation.” [p. 9]

Following the opening of the exhibit, the City continued supporting the site and established an endowment of approximately $1.5 million for its maintenance. After the project’s completion in 2015, this endowment was transferred to NPS. In 2016, the City and NPS executed an agreement assigning intellectual property rights associated with the President’s House project to NPS.

In 2017, the NPS issued a Foundation Document for Independence National Historical Park outlining the park’s purpose, significance, and interpretive themes. The document identified the President’s House as the residence where George Washington and John Adams lived and worked during their presidencies and highlighted the historical tension between the ideals of liberty and the presence of enslaved individuals in Washington’s household, referring to this theme as the “Paradox of Freedom and Slavery.” [p. 10] The objective was to present “race and slavery in its historical context,” by illustrating how “[t]he promises of liberty and equality granted in the founding documents present a paradox: not only are they ideals to strive for but they are unfulfilled promises for people who struggle to be fully included as citizens of our nation.” [p. 11]

In 2022, the President’s House was nominated for inclusion in the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, a program established under the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998. The nomination relied on the historical account of Oney Judge’s escape from the residence. The superintendent of Independence National Historical Park approved the nomination, and the site was designated as part of the Network to Freedom.

On March 27, 2025, the President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14253 titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” The order directed the Secretary of the Interior to review monuments, memorials, and similar historical properties under the Department’s authority and to take action where appropriate, “as appropriate and consistent with applicable law […]” [p. 12]

Under EO 14253, Sec. 4. “Restoring Truth in American History. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall: (iii) take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to ensure that all public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times), and instead focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people or, with respect to natural features, the beauty, abundance, and grandeur of the American landscape.” [pp. 12-13]

On January 22, 2026, NPS removed 34 educational panels, displays, and video exhibits at the President’s House site that referenced slavery and the individuals enslaved there. These actions were taken without prior notice to the City and without obtaining the City’s agreement.

That same day, the City of Philadelphia filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (requiring agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making and making final agency actions reviewable by courts) against Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, the Department of the Interior, Acting NPS Director Jessica Bowron, and NPS. The City alleged that the removal constituted unlawful agency action, was arbitrary and capricious, and alternatively exceeded the agency’s authority. The City simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction.

After briefing by the parties, several amici curiae (friends of the court) submitted briefs supporting the motion, including Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, the Avenging the Ancestors Coalition (ATAC), the Black Journey, and members of the Democratic Caucus of the Pennsylvania Senate. The Court held a hearing on January 30, 2026. During the hearing, the City presented evidence while Defendants presented none. The Court then issued a post-hearing order directing that “No further removal and/or destruction of the President’s House site will be permitted until further order of the Court.” [p. 2]

The City later filed an Amended Complaint and an Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, seeking restoration of the exhibit to its condition as of January 21, 2026, and requesting that the Court prohibit further alterations to the site. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion.

On February 16, 2026, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion regarding the City’s Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On February 17, 2026, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As of March 2026, the case is still in progress.

Decision Overview

Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania delivered the Memorandum Opinion in this case. The central questions before the Court were whether the NPS’s unilateral removal of slavery-related displays from the President’s House site was arbitrary and capricious or ultra vires (meaning the agency acted beyond the scope of its lawful authority), and whether the City of Philadelphia was entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring restoration of the exhibits.

The City of Philadelphia contended that the NPS’s removal of the slavery-related interpretive displays violated the legal framework governing the President’s House site, including the 1948 legislation establishing the park and the cooperative agreements executed in 1950 and 2006. In the City’s view, those authorities required consultation and mutual agreement before significant alterations could occur. By dismantling the exhibits without notice or approval, the federal government allegedly disregarded these obligations. The City also maintained that the removal constituted final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA and that no statutory provision barred the Court from reviewing the agency’s conduct.

On the merits, the City argued that the government’s actions constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action under the APA. It contended that eliminating materials about Oney Judge and her escape from slavery undermined the purpose of the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998, because the President’s House site had been recognized within that program precisely for its connection to that history. The City also argued that the government’s actions conflicted with the statutory provisions governing Independence National Historical Park, which require cooperative decision-making between the federal government and the City regarding alterations to the site. In addition, the City asserted that the removal contradicted the NPS’s own interpretive framework for the park, which identifies the tension between liberty and slavery in the founding era as a central theme and recognizes collaboration with the City as a fundamental value. The City further advanced an alternative ultra vires claim, arguing that the agency exceeded its statutory authority by acting unilaterally in contravention of 16 U.S.C. section 407n, which explicitly requires mutual agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and the City before alterations may be made to Independence National Historical Park. The City further asserted that it faced irreparable harm because dismantling the exhibits deprived the public of access to a complete historical narrative, undermined the integrity of a site developed through years of public engagement, and impaired the City’s ability to present its own history in advance of the nation’s semiquincentennial celebration.

The federal government disputed that the City possessed any legally protected interest in the President’s House exhibit. They argued that the statutory framework establishing Independence National Historical Park and the 1950 cooperative agreement required mutual consent only for alterations within the Independence Hall National Historic Site and did not extend to the President’s House location. On that basis, the federal government maintained that the City lacked standing to challenge the removal of the displays. They also contended that the 2006 Cooperative Agreement could not supply such an interest because the relevant provisions had expired under the agreement’s Third Amendment, which, in their view, terminated any remaining property or contractual rights the City held in connection with the project. Defendants further challenged the Court’s jurisdiction, asserting that the removal of the exhibits did not constitute final agency action under the APA because the decision fell within the NPS’s routine management of park facilities. They additionally argued that the City’s claims were barred by the Tucker Act (a statute assigning jurisdiction over contract based claims against the United States to the Court of Federal Claims)because they were fundamentally contractual in nature and therefore belonged in the Court of Federal Claims.

The federal government further argued that the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998 does not prohibit modifications to sites participating in the program and therefore did not constrain the agency’s ability to alter the President’s House exhibits. It also contended that the NPS’s Foundation Document for Independence National Historical Park is a planning document without binding legal force and thus could not support an arbitrary and capricious challenge. According to the federal government, the decision to remove the displays reflected the federal government’s discretion to determine how historical interpretation is presented at federally managed sites, and they identified Executive Order 14253 as the policy basis for the agency’s actions. It maintained that the City had not demonstrated irreparable harm because the asserted injuries were either generalized concerns shared by the public or harms that could be remedied if the displays were restored after final judgment, and argued that the balance of harms and the public interest favored allowing the federal government to determine the interpretive message conveyed at federal monuments and historical sites.

The Court at the outset situated the dispute within a broader reflection on the relationship between governmental authority and historical truth. Invoking George Orwell’s novel “1984” and its depiction of a state apparatus that systematically erased and rewrote the historical record, the Court framed the central question as whether the federal government possesses the power “to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts.” The Court’s answer was unequivocal: “[i]t does not.” [p. 1]

The Court first addressed whether the City had standing to bring the lawsuit. It concluded that the City had a concrete and legally protected interest in the President’s House exhibit arising from decades of cooperation with the federal government and significant municipal investment in the project. The Court traced this interest to the statutory and contractual framework governing Independence National Historical Park, including the 1948 legislation authorizing cooperative agreements with the City and the 1950 Agreement establishing joint consultation and decision-making obligations for major alterations to the site. The Court further found that the interpretive framework created through the later cooperative agreements governing the President’s House project remained operative through a survival clause that preserved provisions expected to continue beyond the agreement’s expiration. In light of these authorities, the Court concluded that the City’s injury was concrete and particularized because the unilateral removal of the displays interfered with its statutory role, financial investment, and longstanding partnership in the development and interpretation of the historic site.

The Court next considered whether the dispute was reviewable under the APA. It held that the removal of the exhibits constituted final agency action because the decision represented the culmination of the agency’s decision-making process and had immediate legal and practical consequences for the City’s interests in the project. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the dismantling of the displays was merely a routine operational matter, describing the action instead as a substantial alteration to the historical interpretation of the site. The Court further addressed the government’s argument that the case belonged in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. The Court agreed in part, concluding that the City’s separate claim framed as a breach of contract fell within the Tucker Act’s jurisdictional scheme and therefore could not proceed under the APA. However, the Court held that the City’s remaining claims alleged violations of statutory obligations and unlawful agency action, which are properly reviewed under the APA. The Court therefore proceeded to evaluate the merits of those claims.

Turning to the merits, the Court first outlined the legal standard governing preliminary injunctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. A movant must demonstrate (i) a likelihood of success on the merits, (ii) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, (iii) that the balance of harms favors the movant, and (iv) that an injunction serves the public interest. Where the government is the opposing party, courts may evaluate the balance of harms and the public interest together. The Court, citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., emphasized that preliminary injunctions constitute “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief”.

In evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits, the Court applied the APA standard under 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A), which authorizes courts to set aside agency action found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” [p. 25] Relying on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Court noted that agency action is arbitrary and capricious when the agency relies on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, fails to address a critical aspect of the problem, offers reasoning inconsistent with the evidence before it, or advances an explanation that cannot reasonably be attributed to agency expertise.

On the City’s first claim, the Court determined that the NPS’s removal of materials relating to Oney Judge and her escape from slavery likely conflicted with the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998. The Court noted that the agency itself had previously supported designating the President’s House site within the Network to Freedom. Eliminating educational materials describing Judge’s escape obscured the historical connection that justified the site’s inclusion in the program and undermined the statutory objective of commemorating locations associated with resistance to slavery. The Court therefore concluded that the City was likely to succeed on this claim because the agency failed to account for central considerations embedded in the statute and its legislative purpose.

The Court reached a similar conclusion regarding the statutory framework governing Independence National Historical Park. Under 16 U.S.C. sections 407m and 407n, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to enter cooperative agreements with the City and must ensure that alterations to the site occur only with mutual agreement of the parties. The Court found that the government did not notify or consult the City before removing the exhibits, despite contractual provisions requiring consultation and joint decision-making. It further concluded that the interpretive framework established in the Project Development Plan remained operative through the survival clause of the relevant cooperative agreement. The Court rejected the government’s reliance on Executive Order 14253 as justification, explaining that the order itself directs agency action only when “consistent with applicable law,” [p. 29] and therefore could not authorize conduct inconsistent with statutory requirements.

The Court also held that the City was likely to prevail on its claim that the agency acted arbitrarily by disregarding the NPS’s own interpretive framework for the park. The Foundation Document identifies the tension between liberty and slavery as a central theme in interpreting the site and identifies cooperation with the City as a foundational principle guiding the park’s administration. The Court characterized the removal of the exhibits as a significant shift from those interpretive commitments. Citing F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the Court noted that when agencies change policy they must provide a “reasoned explanation” and demonstrate awareness that they are departing from prior positions. The Court found no evidence that the agency acknowledged or justified such a reversal.

In addressing the Foundation Document claim, the Court again referenced George Orwell’s 1984, likening the government’s claims to “Big Brother’s domain” where government records were “scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.” [p. 1] The Court observed that the government asserted that historical truth was “no longer self-evident, but rather the property of the elected chief magistrate and his appointees and delegees, at his whim to be scraped clean, hidden, or overwritten.” [p. 32] The Court pointed to the federal government’s own position at oral argument, where counsel insisted that “the Government gets to choose the message it wants to convey” [p. 32] and that “it’s our position that the City doesn’t either.” [p. 33] The Court rejected this premise, holding that an agency “cannot arbitrarily decide what is true, based on its own whims or the whims of the new leadership, regardless of the evidence before it.” [p. 33] Accordingly, the Court therefore determined that the City had demonstrated a likelihood of success on its arbitrary and capricious claims.

The Court also examined the City’s alternative ultra vires claim (an additional legal theory advanced in the event the Court declined to grant relief under the APA). Quoting Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, the Court noted that such claims are limited to circumstances in which an agency acts “in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition” in statutory law. The Court found that Congress had imposed clear limitations on unilateral alterations to the historic site through the cooperative agreement framework. The agency’s removal of a central component of the exhibit without the City’s agreement constituted what the Court described as “unexplained and obvious deviations from statutory text.” [p. 34] The Court therefore concluded that the City was also likely to succeed on its ultra vires claim.

The Court further framed the dispute in constitutional terms, invoking Justice Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Where executive action conflicts with the expressed or implied will of Congress, presidential authority operates “at its lowest ebb” (meaning the President’s power is at its weakest when acting contrary to Congress’s expressed will). [p. 35] The Court concluded that directing a congressionally authorized agency to disregard statutory limitations placed the executive branch in precisely that position.

The Court next addressed irreparable harm. It concluded that the City had demonstrated a significant risk of injury that could not be remedied after the fact. The Court credited arguments from amici that the removal of historically significant educational material resembled “pulling pages out of a history book with a razor.” [p. 37] It observed that the exhibits served as a memorial recognizing enslaved individuals connected to the site and that their removal deprived visitors of access to a complete historical account. The Court further noted that each day the exhibits remained absent impaired the City’s ability to present the historical narrative it had developed through years of collaboration and public investment, the Court noted that “the City of Philadelphia is deprived of the ability to honestly and accurately tell the story of its own history.” [p. 38]

The Court emphasized that the President’s House was not simply a set of removable exhibits but a memorial physically embedded within the site itself. It explained that several elements of the displays were incorporated into permanent structures, including panels etched in concrete and installations enclosed within glass, such that removing them would likely damage the integrity of the historic site. The Court further noted that the archaeological remains of the President’s House are fragile and require specialized interpretive infrastructure, including controlled temperature and humidity conditions and functioning video displays, to be properly preserved and presented to the public. Disrupting that infrastructure through unauthorized dismantling, the Court observed, risked causing lasting harm to the site and its interpretive function.

The Court also considered arguments presented by amicus Governor Josh Shapiro concerning the broader constitutional implications of the government’s actions. The Governor maintained that the federal government’s unilateral removal of the exhibits disregarded the City’s established role in the creation and development of the project and implicated principles of federalism reflected in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the states. By acting outside the cooperative framework governing the site, the Governor argued, federal officials effectively displaced Pennsylvania’s interest in presenting its own historical narrative to the public. The Court acknowledged these concerns and noted that the sudden elimination of historically significant materials could cause substantial harm to public trust and to communities that rely on historically accurate public memorials to understand the nation’s past.

Evaluating the remaining factors together, the Court concluded that both the balance of harms and the public interest favored granting relief. The Court emphasized that courts have long recognized a strong public interest “in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations.” [p. 39] Because the parties did not dispute the historical accuracy of the exhibits, the Court further reasoned that maintaining and presenting those materials served the public’s interest in preserving an accurate account of the nation’s past.

The Court rejected the federal government’s primary counterargument that an injunction would improperly interfere with its ability to communicate its “preferred” message. According to the Court, restoring the exhibits would not limit the government’s ability to express alternative views elsewhere; rather, it would simply require compliance with the statutory and cooperative frameworks governing the site. As the Court explained, the executive branch “can convey a different message without restraint elsewhere if it so pleases,” but it cannot do so at the President’s House unless it first “follows the law and consults with the City.” [p. 40] The Court therefore concluded that the federal government may not disregard legislatively imposed obligations in order to alter or remove historical interpretation at a site governed by mandatory cooperative arrangements.

In light of these findings, and having rejected the federal government’s sole countervailing argument regarding the government’s interest in conveying its preferred speech, the Court concluded that the City had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits under both its arbitrary and capricious and ultra vires claims, that it faced irreparable harm from the removal of historically significant educational material, and that the balance of equities and the public interest weighed decisively in its favor. The Court granted the Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The Court further ordered the federal government to restore the President’s House site to its physical status as of January 21, 2026, enjoined it from making any further alterations without the mutual agreement of the City during the pendency of the litigation, and directed it to provide immediate and continuing maintenance to the site, its exhibits, grounds, artifacts, and video monitors.