A U.S. district judge last week issued a stay on implementing an executive order by the president that led to the dismantlement of signs in national parks that highlighted environmental concerns or mistreatment of minority groups in U.S. history.
The order by Judge Angel Kelley (a Biden appointee) in National Parks Conservation Association v. U.S. Department of the Interior stops Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and his subordinates from carrying out President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14253, which was entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”
The scope of the stay extends to actions at more than 433 park sites within the national park system, which began with the establishment of the Yellowstone National Park in 1872. The order is otherwise quite similar to Judge Cynthia M. Rufe’s decision ordering the restoration of interpretative signs relative to slavery at the President’s House in Philadelphia earlier in 2026 in Philadelphia in City of Philadelphia v Burgum.
Decision based chiefly on statutory grounds
Although the primary issue of this second case involves governmental censorship, which is typically protected by the free speech and press clauses of the First Amendment, the decision was based on statutory grounds. These included provisions 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 quoted U.S. Rep. Nicola Tsongas’ observation in supporting the National Park Service Centennial Act of 2016 that the parks belong to all Americans. Tsongas had further observed that “in this era of political division and disagreement: National parks are national. They cut across party lines and geographical boundaries. They enjoy broad support, and they bring people together—something we seem to need now more than ever.”
Judge Kelley said that whereas the mission of the parks was to present “unvarnished storytelling” and “the delivery of undeniable truths,” the government “has disregarded these principles. Under the guise of promoting American dignity, this Administration seeks to share a limited history by ordering the removal of all signs, displays, and interpretative exhibits at National parks that do not align with its preferred narrative, thereby telling half-truths.”
Under the guise of promoting American dignity, this Administration seeks to share a limited history by ordering the removal of all signs, displays, and interpretative exhibits at National parks that do not align with its preferred narrative, thereby telling half-truths. - Judge Angel Kelley
Judge Kelley observed that key purposes of these acts establishing and governing national parks included both conservation and education. She also noted that interpretations of these sites had proceeded over many years in consultation with historians and other professionals. However, in implementing the president’s order, by removing displays from numerous park sites throughout the country, Secretary Burgum had not published a notice of what he was doing in the Federal Register and had not consulted members of the public, most of whom supported truthful displays.
Standards used to justify a stay order
Kelly argued that the individuals and groups who were challenging these actions had established sufficient evidence for a stay of continuing removals and the restoration of those that had occurred. Consistent with case law in this area, they had demonstrated that the plaintiffs had standing as well as their “(1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm if injunctive relieves is not granted; (3) a balance of equities … in the movant’s favor; and (4) [that] injunctive relief is in the public interest.”
In establishing that the actions lacked “reasoned explanation,” Kelley pointed out that “the Order does not grapple with the relevant legal authority or statutory frameworks that bind the Land Management Bureaus”; that “the Order fails to provide any indication that Defendants considered relevant facts and evidence,”; that it identified “no expert reports or analyses reporting any deficiencies in the materials being targeted, such as that they are historically inaccurate or inconsistent with statutory obligations”; nor had it explained how “unearthing and displaying the historical contributions of marginalized groups detracts from celebrating ‘our extraordinary heritage.’”
Kelley further argued that removal of the displays undermined the “reliance interests” of those who had depended upon parks for unbiased treatments of historical events and for their information about climate science and conservation. The secretary could not rely on the presidential order if it were unconstitutional, and would, in any case, be obligated to comply with existing governmental procedures in implementing such an order.
Kelley said that although the government had justified its acts as a way of countering “a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth,” the government’s action “do exactly what they profess to counteract, dismantling objective historic truths and permanently damaging public memory.”
Further reasons for stay
Kelley further justified her order on the basis that the continuing harms could not be mitigated through monetary damages. She noted that “by its terms, the Order erases the history of countless people; alienates communities from public spaces; limits the availability of scientific information relevant to ensuring the long-term preservation of the parks themselves; and impairs the mission of the NPS to preserve the parks ‘for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.’” She said that “restoring park sites to their state prior to the issuance of the Secretary’s Order is the proper course of action to minimize injury.”
As Judge Kelley observed, the issue takes on particular significance as the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of its independence. The order is, of course, likely to be appealed.
John R. Vile is a political science professor and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University.