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 of 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
Laws, and the judgments based on those laws, should be almost exclusively of a prohibitive nature: forbidding conduct that results in harm to an individual citizen, or a curtailment of that citizen’s rights. Laws compelling performance or behavior run counter to the premise of individual liberty by default, and in most cases are either primarily intended to curtail liberty, or are just begging to be abused to that end.
The executive power is the power of the executive branch.
No legislation that usurps and exercises executive power is constitutional.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) nullifies Article 2 of the Constitution and usurps and exercises the executive power of the executive branch.
The APA is egregiously unconstitutional.
Once again, Project 2025 has pushed the limits to coerce America to accept its version of reality, and once again, after getting smacked down by a judge, the usual MAGA pundits, like Turley, attack the judge and accuse them of bias. Turley tries to support the MAGA agenda by claiming: “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.”
Here’s a description of some of the materials Trump ordered removed:
Quotes at Bunker Hill Monument, Massachusetts
Park officials planned to remove panels featuring historic quotes linking the Revolutionary War site to later struggles over slavery, immigration, women’s suffrage and anti-war activism.
Slavery exhibit at the President’s House, Pennsylvania
Exhibits explaining how enslaved people lived and worked at George Washington’s Philadelphia residence were taken down during the review of park displays.
Sign at Francis G. Newlands Memorial Fountain, Washington, D.C.
The National Park Service removed a sign detailing the racist views and policies of former Senator Francis G. Newlands of Nevada. Installed in 2022, the panel explained his support for white supremacist causes, including efforts to restrict immigration and deny voting rights to Black Americans.
Climate change displays at National Parks
Information boards discussing climate change and its impact on public lands were removed or altered at several National Park Service sites as part of the administration’s review.”
It’s not a “preferred narrative” to point out that slavery did exist in the United States, and enslaved people, considered personal property by law, were sometimes treated with cruelty. One of the items ordered removed was the photo of Peter Gordon, the slave who was savagely beaten by his Louisiana owner for trying to escape. He had numerous large keloid scars on his back as a result of beatings–showing this proof of the cruelty of slavery is not a “preferred narrative”, but trying to cover it up is. Reputable scientists agree that climate change is real and human-created. The fossil fuel industry, that heavily contributes to Republicans and Trump, oppose this scientific truth, and that’s what motivates their “preferred narrative” on climate change. Accusing the Biden administration of pushing a politically-motivated “preferred narrative” on slavery and climate change by displaying information at historical sites and federal parks is wrong. You can’t erase the truth about slavery or climate change by refusing to acknowledge it. The Judge got it right–Trump was trying to erase history, and that is wrong.
And, Clarence Thomas is a disgrace–personally and as a judge. “The Week” reports the following scandals: Thomas accepted luxury vacations paid for by billionaires who have business before the Court. Between 1998 and 2003, Thomas accepted $42,200 in gifts. Harlan Crow purchased the home in which Thomas’s mother lived and she continues to live there, rent-free. Crow paid for private school tuition for Thomas’s great-nephew. Ginni Thomas created radical right wing group Liberty Central with $500,000 from Crow. Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society funneled $80,000 to $100,000 in consulting fees for Ginni Thomas that went through a straw company to cover up the source. Anthony Welters loaned Thomas $267,230 for a luxury RV, and there is no evidence it was repaid, and if the loan was forgiven, this was not disclosed as required by law. Ginni Thomas was directly involved in the insurrection and Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself from cases involving the insurrection. He was the lone dissent in a case seeking to compel production of insurrection documents to the Congressional committee investigating the insurrection. And, you wonder why the African American History Museum does not honor him?
Nonsense
It’s “version of reality?” Seriously? Here is the key observation in the essay: “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.”
Your “preferred narrative” is not shared by most Americans.
I hope you aren’t in the US, anon. It must be horrible for you.
I have now had time to read the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A 5 U.S.C. § 705, and Judge Kelley’s Memorandum and Order in its entirety. (Now I must get about all else I had planned for today!)
But I add this:
(1) The National Park Service is an Executive Branch agency under the Department of the Interior.
(2) The Department of the Interior has its own Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) “an impartial forum for parties who are affected by the decisions of the Department’s bureaus and offices to obtain independent review of those decisions.”
Ҥ 4.1 Scope of authority; applicable regulations.
(a) In general. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), headed by a Director, is an authorized representative of the Secretary for the purpose of hearing, considering, and deciding matters within the jurisdiction of the Department involving hearings, appeals, and other review functions of the Secretary, including those established by statute, regulations, or policy. OHA may hear, consider, and decide those matters as fully and finally as might the Secretary, subject to any limitations on its delegated authority imposed by the Secretary.”
(3) While this court (Judge Kelley) may have jurisdiction over the matter, would it have been more prudent to FIRST remand to OHA for its input under the administrative remand rule?
(4) Notwithstanding Chevron’s ultimate demise, I don’t think it would affect this (administrative remand rule).
Fellow colleagues who might practice administrative law, what sayeth thou?
The left is trying to run out the clock.
It can be removed the same way it was shoved in our faces. D卐M☭CRATz REALLY SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BEING FAIR AND PLAYING BY THE RULES !!!!.
Here here ,,,, the political activist lawyer in robes certainly doesn’t see the hypocrisy she participates in while she promotes scientific and historical falsehoods
It’s 63 pages and congrats to those who have the intestinal fortitude to read it.
Privatize them and the civic center, too. They’ve become political entities.
What if Pres. Trump insisted that the “historical truths” be included outlining the actions of the Democrat Party and the many ways they fought and defended Slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, Separate-but-Equal, etc.? How about which African leaders sold the slaves and the Muslim slavers that engage to this day? It’s historically true so why not placards to inform the ignorant public who exactly was behind the institution, who fought to maintain it (to this day), and who fought to remove it?
“It’s historically true so why not placards to inform the ignorant public who exactly was behind the institution, who fought to maintain it (to this day), and who fought to remove it?”
That is a most excellent suggestion.
Shall slaves become Americans, or shall Americans become slaves?
Judge Kelley’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion” while it exhibits no intention to assimilate but to segregate, exclude, and overemphasize differences.
Judge Kelley’s decision is a usurpation and exercise of the executive power vested solely in the President of the United States.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Judge Angel Kelley’s Nationwide Injunction (June 12, 2026)In her 63-page decision halting the enforcement of Executive Order 14253, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley explicitly condemned the Department of the Interior’s targeted censorship: “Under the guise of promoting American dignity, this Administration seeks to share a limited history… thereby telling half-truths.” “Because Defendants deemed it important to strip the parks of these undeniable truths… it is equally important that our shared history be honestly told and fully restored…” Judge Kelley ruled the actions were “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion” for lack of reasoned justification.
2. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe’s Preliminary Injunction (Philadelphia Site) Regarding the removal of panels at the President’s House Site, U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe compared the actions to “Orwellian censorship,” noting the government cannot “dissemble and disassemble historical truths”. The court ordered the immediate restoration of the site to its January 2026 status.
3. The Statutory Parameter: The Administrative Procedure ActThe court rulings relied on 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), which empowers courts to set aside agency actions deemed “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”.How This Law Compels the Executive BranchBecause the administration lacked evidence to justify removing the educational exhibits, the courts determined the actions were an abuse of political power rather than a lawful policy change. The executive branch must restore all removed exhibits within a 21-day timeline.