George Santayana famously said that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The same is true for judicial overreach. Those judges who yield to the temptation to counter policies that are not to their liking are likely to repeat such excesses of power. That is why the recent decision of U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston is so concerning. While there are good-faith reasons why some have objected to the removal of slavery and climate change exhibits from national parks and monuments, this is not about the merits but the authority to make such changes. Kelley’s recent injunction smacks of judicial excess rather than measured review.
Judge Kelley, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction at the behest of groups representing park conservationists, historians and scientists, who argued that the U.S. Department of the Interior has been engaged in a “sustained campaign to erase history and undermine science.”
The complaint is heavily laden with subjective views of historical relevance that are obviously not shared by the Administration. These interpretations were installed under the discretion of the Biden Administration. They were removed under the same inherent discretion of the Trump Administration.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing his predecessor on what he viewed as a “revisionist movement” that portrayed the U.S. as “inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”
He ordered the Interior Department to make changes to parks, monuments and memorials to address any “false revision of history” that the White House said had occurred in recent years.
Some of the displays discuss the abuses of indigenous populations or the enslavement of persons at these sites. I happen to agree with the Court that such context is important for citizens to fully appreciate our history. The issue, however, is who legally decides on such interpretive displays.
For example, I strongly disagreed with the African American Museum in the exclusion Justice Clarence Thomas from displays of great African Americans. While I supported those in Congress seeking answers from the Smithsonian, I never viewed the material as a violation of federal law or worthy of judicial intervention. Notably, these historical groups and experts did not file actions in federal court to force his inclusion.
That was, of course, the individual decision of one museum. However, the question is why the Administration can make such individual decisions rather than department-wide or branch-wide decisions. Likewise, it is difficult to see the limiting principle here. If President Trump said that he wanted to emphasize certain elements like patriotism and these displays were substituted, would that also be a violation of federal law?
The challengers invoked federal law to argue that the Trump Administration was wrong and that the action was therefore arbitrary and capricious. The action is based on loose interpretations of the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Park Service Centennial Act, and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judge Kelley chastises the Administration for removing displays that “do not align with its preferred narrative.” However, the original displays were themselves a preferred narrative by the prior Administration.
Judge Kelley invokes generally worded federal laws to require the Administration to seek out and heed the wisdom of historical experts on such questions, despite the views of other experts who agree with the action.
She declared that the removal of the displays not only undermines “the integrity of the National Parks; it sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization.”
The court notes that “the Secretary’s Order fails to provide any reasoned justification for its directive to review and remove interpretive material.” Yet, that would seem abundantly obvious from the cited Executive Order and the purpose of the change. The real question is whether this type of action requires more than the exercise of discretion. Agencies and offices routinely make such decisions on displays. The only difference is a branch-wide order.
The court’s cited authority is itself vague and undefined. For example, Judge Kelley holds that “The Order mentions the Organic Act and the FLPMA as ‘Authority’ but does not explain its relationship to those statutes, such as how the removal of interpretive materials comports with the Organic Act’s mandate to ‘conserve’ and to ‘provide for the enjoyment’ of park resources. 54 U.S.C. § 100101(a).”
The Administration is citing the sweeping discretion afforded under federal law. However, the Court suggests it can micromanage the branch in making decisions about interpretative displays under this language.
Once again, I may agree with these historians on some of this material but it is immaterial — as immaterial as Judge Kelley’s qualms. In my view, the court’s analysis is deeply flawed and should be reversed.
Here is the decision: National Park Conservation Association v. Department of the Interior
Pages 20 and 21 of the decision mention an Order denying of Defendants’ Motion to dismiss for lack of Article lll standing. Those are the documents I would want to see. What blood is there on Plaintiffs’ noses that qualifies as the particularized injury, distinguishable from citizens a whole, necessary to support cases arising jurisdiction in this court?
Professor Turley says, “ Judge Kelley chastises the Administration for removing displays that “do not align with its preferred narrative.” However, the original displays were themselves a preferred narrative by the prior Administration.”
That’s a gross mischaracterization. The Biden administration did not impose its “preferred narrative” it chose to display basic historical truths. It’s a huge distinction between what the Biden administration did and what Trump wanted to do. One was simple basic historical truths even Professor Turley agrees should be displayed. The other is an attempt to erase or remove something that makes the U.S. look bad.
“ They were removed under the same inherent discretion of the Trump Administration.”
No. This is is where professor Turley starts to veer into disingenuous narration. Turley left out a big reason why judge Kelly’s ruling is valid. Not merely because she was being arbitrary or ‘vague’. Turley left out the fact that the Trump administration broke the law when it removed the displays. Specifically the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of the APA (The administrative procedure act).
When an agency shifts away from long-standing practices—especially those rooted in scientific or historical expertise—it must provide a “reasoned justification” for the change. The Trump administration could not provide one. Simply citing a new executive preference was not enough to satisfy federal law if the action appears to ignore the agency’s statutory mandate.
For example, the Organic Act requires the National Park Service to “conserve” and “provide for the enjoyment” of park resources. Removing historically accurate context without a clear, evidence-based explanation undermines the “integrity” of those resources, which exceeds what is “lawful discretion.”
Judge Kelly was indeed following the actual law. She was not ‘micromanaging’ the administration based on her own views.
The Trump administration has been on a tear about ‘sanitizing’ our history to make it less uncomfortable or ignore the ugly truths of our past because it’s not…patriotic or casts guilt on “white Americans.”
Fascist judges think they can interfere with and block legitimate Executive authority, and there are no sanctions that punish them for their overreach. These Fascists in robes are, of course, no worse than Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who decides cases based on her “feelings” rather than following the Constitution or the law. Democrats love judges that rule first and ask questions later, as long as the rulings favor them. Imagine a Supreme Court packed with judicial extremists like these.
Surely bright folks in the admin can add signage that presents both sides of any story.
What other side is there to present? That it was ok to abuse slaves, that slavery had its benefits? Slave owners were nice people?
Comments like this are exactly why the “other side” of the story needs to be told. The “other side” is not that slavery or abuse were ever okay. It’s that this country fought a war, amended the Constitution, passed civil‑rights laws, and keeps grinding away at those wrongs. If none of that had happened, you’d still see those same evils fully legal today.
You don’t. That’s not an accident, it’s part of the American story. Leaving out our efforts to fix what we broke is just as dishonest as pretending the damage never happened in the first place.
Well said.
I don’t think the judge is out of line here. There’s actual law on the books that limits what any administration can do with these parks, and it doesn’t let them just yank signs because they make America look bad.
The answer isn’t to erase the ugly parts of our past, it’s to put them in context. Keep the hard truth about slavery, treatment of Native peoples, and the rest, then add the story of how we’ve tried to fix it through amendments, civil rights, and reform.
That kind of full picture is more faithful to the Constitution’s idea of forming a more perfect union than a scrubbed, feel‑good version that skips the hard stuff.
You conveniently ignore the fact that it was an administration that decided to put the items in and an administration that decided to take them out.
Just as when Biden gave Temporary Status to illegals it was fine but when Trump ended “Temporary” Status the courts enjoined him.
Yeah, an administration put the signs in and an administration tried to take them out. But both moves still have to stay inside the law. The parks aren’t the president’s bulletin board; they’ve got a legal duty to tell people what actually happened there, not just what flatters whoever’s in office.
If Trump didn’t like how Biden’s team framed the story, the honest fix wasn’t to erase slavery, Native history, or climate facts. It was to keep the hard truth and then add the rest of the story about amendments, civil‑rights gains, and how we’ve moved closer to a “more perfect union.”
PS: I went looking for a legal way for Trump to dump the “negative” signs and lean into the positive story. What I found instead were the very limits that made what he actually did unlawful. If that bugs us, the answer isn’t to pretend those limits aren’t there, it’s to change the law.
Olly, so the judge did rule based on the law, not what Turley implies as a “vague” reason.
You conveniently ignore the fact…
Nope. Instead of reflexively defending out of emotions, I chose to do what citizens should be able to do…look for the limiting factor of the law. You might prove my understanding as wrong, but that’s what you should have done in the first place.
Olly, I agree. Well put.
Joe Biden…. it’s like a 4 year long nightmare that’s impossible to wake up from.
There are more DEI bombs such as this “judge” that will continue to explode like hidden ordinances from a war that ended years ago.
It seems that congress needs to do its work and corral the district courts and start limiting their jurisdiction as the constitution allows. Maybe it would be appropriate for Congress to limit signage at National Parks as determined by the National Park Service and the Administration which is in office. A lot to hope for.
I guess it never occurred to this judge that this was a simple reversal of a previous arbitrary decision and maybe this should be left to the people and their representatives which they elected.
Mr Obama said elections have consequences but it would appear only his election had real consequences and anything he wrote or ordered is in gold and immutable.
Term Limits for Judges. From SCOTUS all the way down to district courts. As well as Senators and Representatives.
What is amazing is that this era of Judicial Kingship isn’t even protested by the “No Kings” groupies that seem to endorse King like action from these Judicial Tyrants.
We must all worship and the Idol of climate and past slavery forever. Wacko judge.