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
NO. IT IS NOT “CENSORSHIP”
Frank Buono, NPS retired
(composed in April 2026, revised June 7,2026 – prior to Judge Kelly’s ruling)
Someday, a Secretary of the Interior or a Director of the National Park Service (NPS) may remove images and statues of Confederate generals from Civil War Battlefields. The resulting distorted history would be decried by some, applauded by others. But it would not be “censorship.” Ironically, some now calling out censorship, would likely approve such a move.
At Independence Hall, the NPS removed exhibits that Department of the Interior (DOI) officials decided did not adequately explain the context of the nation’s founders, some of whom owned slaves. Others may address whether our country was (and may remain) fundamentally flawed because of slave ownership by some of its founders. Our opinions about this are not the point. A provocative and distasteful action by the NPS? Yes. Censorship? No
“Censorship” is when a controlling authority, almost always state or church but increasingly universities and professional boards, proscribes the expression of viewpoints by persons subject to their power. Our Constitution forbids government censorship of private speech – individual or collective. Unconstitutional Government censorship of private speech is both repugnant and easily detected. See the most recent (March 31, 2026) Supreme Court free speech decision (8-1) in Chiles v. Salazar. Governments may also hide censorship by commandeering social media to restrict speech contrary to the “party line.” Direct or indirect, censorship is anathema to a free society.
But government is able to craft the messages it wishes to convey in communications with the public. Not only may government do so, it is categorically exempt from any attempt to force the expression of alternative or contrary viewpoints. This is called “government speech.” (Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, US Supreme Court, 2009).
The government, and the government alone, is the arbiter of the message it wishes to communicate. Even when in error! Like it or not, Congress created an NPS in 1916, as an agency of the government, subject to the lawful oversight of the Secretary of the Interior, an appointee of the nation’s highest elected official. DOI may assess and alter NPS websites and the written and display materials in the national parks, under the doctrine of “government speech.”
Some say the NPS is inaccurately portraying history. Indeed it may be. No one wants Stalinist versions of history that paint only what is bright and favorable. This debate is not so simple.
There is an Italian folk saying that “La aritimetica non e opinione.” History is certainly not arithmetic. History is “fact” inevitably colored by opinion. Accounts of our nation’s history range from Howard Zinn (A People’s History of the United States) to Larry Schweikert (A Patriot’s History of the United States), and everything in between. Even if there are more accurate accounts of history than others, there is no single history of America, or a non-governmental entity or a court with the authority to either prescribe or dictate the “true” historical account.
Not a single word of this essay justifies what the NPS did at Independence Hall. Out of decades of devotion to the national park system, I value the displays our parks offer. They educate, inform and inspire and are among the best in the world. One of the foremost scholars of the parks, Dr. Alfred Runte had this to say about interpretation. It is done best when it “guides the visitor, yes, but not preach a point of view.”
Higher courts are unlikely to overturn the doctrine of “government speech,” even in this mislabeled and emotional debate about “censoring” park displays.
Censorship can come in the form of suppression of speech, or in the force feeding of propaganda to drown out your speech. What this judge is doing is protecting their force feeding of propaganda to us in the guise of protecting us from suppression of speech. I do not need or want the government’s opinions on DEI or slavery. During the time the US imported 280k Africans into the country, there were over one MILLION whites enslaved on the northern coasts of Africa and the Ottoman Empire. Do you know why you were not aware of these facts? Government censorship and the force feeding of propaganda.
Someone may correct me if I’m wrong but I think the Park Service is under the Department of Interior which falls within the executive branch authority. Then Secretary of the Interior is a cabinet level post. These judges are exceeding their authority undermining the system of checks and balances on which our tripartite system is based. The Dems are dismantling the institutions our freedom and security are based.
It appears to me there is a competition underway between the judges appointed by both Obama and Biden to position themselves as nominees for the 4 new seats on SCOTUS should the Dems succeed in taking control of the government. KBJ would no doubt be pleased to be joined by like minded jurists.
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston is a great judge, but only according to IslamoCommuNazi standards. Kelley abhors the law, abhors facts and evidence, and abhors case precedent. But Kelley loves IsamoCommuNazi ideology and looks at every case through the IslamoCommuNazi lens. Kelley is precisely the kind of judge that IslamoCommuNazis want running every court in America.
60 years after the end of Jim Crow, and rigorous enforcement of civil rights laws, and the appearance of minority superstars in every field of endeavor, the question needs to be asked? What is the point of focussing attention on a prior era of racial injustice?
Think of the development path for black and brown American kids. The message should be unequivocal that we’re a post-racial meritocracy, and whatever superficial perceptions of race/ethnicity persist because such perceptions are inborn, those perceptions are ignored by hip people. Only hopelessly outdated relics of the past still make anything of racial appearance. They are to be pitied and gently mocked for clinging to past ways of thinking.
Do you think it helps or hurts these kids to see a history exhibit portraying stuff in the past when people who looked similar were considered 2nd class citizens? It’s going to be counterproductive. The messaging needed to get young people to ignore signals of racial appearance needs to be consistent and ubiquitous. Does that mean sanitizing certain ugly chapters of our history?…yes. It’s been enough time to forget. And the most important thing is conditioning young people to act as if racism is something small-minded, uptight people of the past did, and put across the expectation that race/ethnicity is ignored in this day and age as a badge of character.
Are we post-racial meritocracy? Then move to an urban Black neighborhood and raise your children with only the local school system. Or a Black rural neighborhood where the town refuses to run sewer lines and the clay isn’t suitable for a septic field. Or the plight of the guy who had a discrimination suit check in hand and was captured and questioned by police because the bank thought it was a fraudulent check even though it was issued from a law firm.
Maybe there are some areas where this isn’t still the main operative option, but this is how the majority of the US works.
Those up and coming? That is why the white minority wants to stop the progress. Why you want to stop the progress. Because they are 10% of the way to catching up and you cannot bear for them to stand equal to you. The voting rights act allows them to stand equal to you. If the Republicans have a plan that will help them, they will vote Republican. Since the Republicans don’t have such a plan they have to remove that equality. Their vote now doesn’t even count 3/5ths in the MAGA states.
None of this is true at all. Government schools are terrible everywhere. No one is forced to live in a “black neighborhood”. Rural residents in remote locations, for whom it’s expensive to provide services, often miss out on them, regardless of race. And banks routinely report suspicious checks to the police, as they should. The fact that a check is purportedly drawn on a law firm doesn’t make it any less likely to be fraudulent. Do you think fraudsters have scruples about ripping off law firms?!
When do we receive reparations for the $30 trillion taxed from actual Americans for the communist welfare state?
When do we get the admissions and employment markets corrected for the benefit of all those who lost positions and promotions?
When do we receive compensation for the enterprises that were destroyed by the War on Poverty and the Great Society’s compulsory communism?
Impeach, convict, de-naturalize, and deport “fake” U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston.
What the actual f**k are you talking about, you racist piece of sh*t? “Denaturalize and deport”?! She’s as American as you, if not more so.
Even if she had been naturalized in the first place, she’d still be just as American as you, and could still not be “denaturalized”. “Denaturalization” is a misnomer. A valid naturalization can never be revoked, no matter what the person did. The process misleadingly called “denaturalization” consists entirely of the government proving that the person was never validly naturalized in the first place. If they can’t prove that, then the naturalization stands no matter what crimes the person committed.
And of course in this case no one is even alleging that she committed any crime! She has overstepped her authority as a judge, that is all. She’s acted ultra vires, and the government should ignore her injunction and dare her to hold it in contempt. But none of that is a crime.
EXECUTIVE NOT LEGISLATIVE
“A ‘slavery display’ (i.e., an interpretive exhibit or presentation concerning slavery) in a national park is not a legislative act.”
“It is generally an executive-branch action implementing and administering broadly delegated congressional authority over federal property and historic preservation.”
– Gemini
June 15, 2026
CENSORSHIP II
BY Frank Buono, NPS retired
Angel Kelly, a Federal judge in Boston, ordered the NPS on June 12, 2026 to display materials for public viewing that represents the views of the Coalition to Protect the National Parks, among others.
Represented by a law firm euphemistically titled “Democracy Forward,” this is the antithesis of “democracy.” A democratically-elected President and his congressional confirmed political appointees decided to review and alter display materials in the parks. That is their responsibility and prerogative. And theirs alone.
The problem with our side (like the Coalition) is that some of our actions are based on animus rather than principle. Imagine if a Federal judge in the Southern District of Texas ordered the Center For Disease Control during COVID to display materials on its website for public viewing that represented the views of the Children’s Health Defense. We would properly be appalled. I am appalled by this exercise in judicial tyranny in Boston.
Citing no specific law, but only some generalized obligation that the NPS must tell a certain court-approved version of history and science, i.e only as the plaintiffs see it, Judge Kelly issued a judicial dictate where none is proper.
This is threat to our democracy when a judge interpose themselves – not to interpret or enforce laws – but to govern the details of day-to-day park administration and overrule the duly-elected officials who oversee the parks.
I am a member of the Coalition. But here, they are wrong.
Do we really want to establish the principle that what the NPS says in its displays or brochures is subject to challenge by private citizens and subject to judicial censorship of what the NPS must say or must not say? I didn’t think so.
I would just like signs that name the place, directional signs, safety signs. Leave the rest alone and let the people investigate and decide for themselves.
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.
No, it isn’t. The executive power is to execute the laws that the legislature makes. The executive has no power to make regulations except as authorized by Congress.
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
No. It’s NUTCHACHACHA!
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.
mistressadams – Very well said, and accurate.
I hope you aren’t in the US, anon. It must be horrible for you.
Judge Kelley’s injunction will be overturned. You’ll cry us a river. Take your meds… all will be fine.
Well we’re movin on up,
To the east side.
To a deluxe apartment in the sky.
Movin on up
To the east side.
We finally got a piece of the pie.
Fish don’t fry in the kitchen;
Beans don’t burn on the grill.
Took a whole lotta tryin’
Just to get up that hill.
Now we’re up in teh big leagues
Gettin’ our turn at bat.
As long as we live, it’s you and me baby
There ain’t nothin wrong with that.
Well we’re movin on up,
To the east side.
To a deluxe apartment in the sky.
Movin on up
To the east side.
We finally got a piece of the pie.
You are a disgrace to intelligence and cannot see how leftists link everything to slavery and climate change!!!!
I remember a visit the the Federal Archives a few years ago and thinking: What is this leftist garbage?
I realize that there are many anons here. This is addressed to the one that has too long a screed, which very few read, that begins with “ once again, project 2025 blah bla……..it reminds one of too much toilet paper stopping up the only available toilet at Target in Lost Angerlese. Brevity is the soul of wit.
This ‘writer’ is straight out of luney tunes
“In which she continues to live, rent-free”
This statement serves as notice that this anon has never set fioot in a law school, and thus tbdir e ture screed is just a pile of other ppl’s talking points.
Ppl who HAVE taken property are familiar with the concept of a life estate, which Mrs. Thomas retained when she sold her house to Crow.
Thomas has a rich white friend who happens to enjoy his company, and that is Thomas’s sin in the eyes of liberals. The year after RBG failed to recuse herself in a case involving an Israeli billionaire, a foundation connected to this billionaire offered her an award t g at came wiith $1 million.
It makes sense that the only white friend that Thomas has is a rich one, one who has businesses that depend on the outcomes of cases that come before Thomas.
As to the life-estate, it would be interesting to know just how many other such deals Harlan has made; I expect this is the only one.
Thomas has been a bitter victim of his own bitter personality, blaming his early career failures on attempts to move the racist needle.
He’s not self-loathing, but he loathes all the Black Americans who did not achieve what he did, the loathing on the grounds that he is seen as no different from them. His entire career on the Supreme Court has been to hurt Black Americans for that and the Federalist Society has made that possible. They have similar goals.
the only white friend that Thomas has is a rich one
What an FREAKING OBVIOUS LIE. (Hint: His wife is white, and she’s not particularly rich.)
Crowe has never in his life been party to a case before the Supreme Court. That is the standard for recusal.
I expect this is the only one.
Why would you expect that, and what difference would it make if it were true? It’s a completely normal and standard transaction, that thousands of people do all the time.
Great point about preferred narratives! So, when can we get all the statues restored that were forcefully removed? Stop the bland-washing of history. Show us the truth, warts and all. One of strawman issues is the room on the sign. Which truth gets prime real estate on the signs? Your truth. Theirs? How about just a link “Would you like to know more?” where all side can freely post “all sides”?
your diatribe betrays you.
All these items of Jus. Thomas are lies or mischaracterizations of the facts.
Really sorry to hear your deep rooted hate, but you completely miss the point legally
Stuff put up by executive authority can be taken down legally the same way it was put up.
& you repeat this debunk Jan 6th “insurrection” Hoax.
Somehow 1,500 people “attacked” & caused so literally so little damage Congress resumed hours later.
The idea that 1500, people attacking is preposterous, They were invited inside
& “Insurrection” not only was never proved, the Fake Congress Committee illegally deleted all their own work
They only reason half the Democrats in Congress are not in jail for the J6 Committee crimes is that they were all blanket pardoned by Auto Pen
You IGNORE 1,500 false convictions were overturned,
So your Jan 6th narrative is indicative of the falsehood of your entire narrative
& get with it. Even the United Nations has admitted all the major global warming predictions were wrong. That garbage should be taken down. The North Pole did NOT disappear by 2015. There’s still snowcaps in the Himalayas did NOT disappear
I could write a book with additional material . But thanks for the barrage of far left theoretical BS.
No convictions were overturned. A pardon is an acknowledgment of guilt. It’s a get out of jail free card.
That the riot failed to kill the Vice President, the primary target, does not diminish the attempt. No one “invited” them inside.
Liar.
A pardon is an acknowledgment of guilt
No, it is not. More lies from the Prince of Lies.
the riot failed to kill the Vice President, the primary target,
What a LITERAL BLOOD LIBEL. You are disgusting. There was never any attempt to kill the Vice President. Nor was there an attempt to kill anyone else. The only people killed were the protesters.
And yes, they were invited in by the Capitol Police, who opened the doors and ushered them in.
Repeat a lie long enough you start to believe don’t you?
You’re a f**king liar. Every word of that was a lie.
Particularly the claim that “Thomas accepted luxury vacations paid for by billionaires who have business before the Court.” If that were true you would have named those billionaires. But you didn’t because you couldn’t. Harlan Crowe has never in his life had a case before the Supreme Court. If he ever does, obviously Thomas would recuse himself from that case.
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?
@ Lin,
The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is designed to review routine bureau-level decisions, such as grazing permits, mining claims, or personnel grievances. It does not have the legal authority to review, overturn, or interpret a Presidential Executive Order or a direct mandate from the Secretary of the Interior.
Plus, the administrative remand doctrine typically applies when a court needs an agency to utilize its technical expertise to clarify ambiguous facts or specialized regulations. In this case, the dispute centers on constitutional boundaries and statutory interpretation—specifically, whether the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide a “reasoned justification.” Courts do not defer to agencies on core questions of constitutional and statutory law.
Hope that helps.
Esquire: Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond; appreciated.
After I got home tonite and before I saw your response, I pulled this up from AI (which apparently disagrees with you):
“Yes, a district court can invoke the administrative remand doctrine to return a case to the agency if it finds that the agency action violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This is a common remedy where the court invalidates the action and sends it back to the agency for further consideration.”
“The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) within the Department of the Interior does have jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This includes handling disputes related to agency actions and ensuring compliance with procedural standards set by the APA.”
So much for AI.
What is curious to me is that, notwithstanding that the district court/Kelley granted a STAY pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705, it also appears to have ORDERED the agency to undo/replace/restore, etc., (related to all heretofore actions) within 21 days; -to me, that part qualifies as an appealable “final order,” rather than just a granted Stay for prospective activity, combined with an administrative remand to reconsider a/o revamp the agency’s previous acts (removing material, etc., prior to conclusively ruling that the agency’s actions were unlawful. I suppose the court possibly considered the agency’s responsive pleading as defendant in lieu of/akin to a response to remand, but they are not substantively the same.
Hope I am making sense and thanks again.
In Re: Esquire v. AI
I recuse myself, ha ha
@ Lin,
Just saw this, I appreciate your reply. I would like to clarify that your AI response seems to be one of those hallucinations which pop up sometimes.
Interior’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) absolutely does not have general jurisdiction to adjudicate APA lawsuits or strike down Presidential Executive Orders. Under federal law, only Article III federal courts have the authority to hear constitutional and APA challenges to high-level secretarial and presidential directives. The OHA handles narrow, routine administrative disputes like land use, grazing permits, and Indian probate.
Under 43 CFR § 4.1(b), the OHA’s jurisdiction is explicitly compartmentalized into specific boards, such as the Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) and the Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA). These boards are restricted to reviewing routine, lower-level bureau decisions like grazing permits, public land use, mineral rights, and Indian probate.
Under 43 CFR § 4.21(c), the OHA cannot review or grant stays on actions that are mandated by higher authorities or specific overriding regulations.
A presidential executive order is a directive issued under the President’s Article II constitutional powers. Challenges to the legality or constitutionality of an executive order must be brought directly before a lifetime-appointed Article III federal judge, completely bypassing internal executive agency review boards like the OHA.
I’ve learned to double check AI responses before accepting what it spits out. It’s becoming a thing in the legal profession. I have seen some colleagues get burned or embarrassed when they don’t double check.
Additionally, a preliminary injunction is not a “final order”. Under 5 U.S.C. § 705. A preliminary injunction is by definition an interlocutory (interim) ruling designed to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm before a final judgment on the merits is reached. While preliminary injunctions are immediately appealable to a circuit court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), they are not “final orders” that close the case.
Hopefully this clarifies any doubt. Have a great day.
Looks like you are learning on the job, esquire. Instead of relying on (b)’s standing boards or OHA units, you should have looked at (c) Director’s Office and Ad Hoc Boards of Appeals. I think she (he?) was just saying that, although the judge’s Memo and Order appears to indicate a later proceeding, could the judge have opted to invoke the remand procedure. Of course under Axon, the district court has jurisdiction to consider the claims but that was not the issue posed. The issue raised by the comment speaks more to alternative choices or remedies prior to a final ruling.
And no one said that a preliminary injunction was a final order. I think the writer knows that. there was a clear distinction in the memo/order between enjoining certain activity and ordering a remedy on the remainder.
Additionally, a preliminary injunction is not a “final order”. Under 5 U.S.C. § 705. A preliminary injunction is by definition an interlocutory (interim) ruling designed to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm before a final judgment on the merits is reached.
And yet this purported injunction orders a CHANGE in the status quo. Surely that makes that portion of it a final order.
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.
Sell them. Maybe China will purchase and charge entry fees.
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.
Only Americans bred them like cattle.
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.