This memo opinion says the National Park Service likely acted unlawfully when it removed slavery-related materials from the President's House site at Independence National Historical Park without the City's required consultation/mutual agreement, and that the City is likely to succeed on the merits at the preliminary-injunction stage.

• The opinion states that on Jan. 22, 2026, NPS removed 

 and deactivated related videos at the President's House exhibit that referenced slavery and the people Washington enslaved.

• The City sued under the APA; the court finds the City has standing tied to Congress-authorized cooperative agreements and the City's role/funding in the exhibit.

 reviewable under the APA (not just "day-to-day operations").

• On the preliminary record, the court concludes the City is likely to show the removals were 

 because they disregarded governing constraints (including mutual-assent requirements and the site's agreed interpretive framework).

 What would the administrative record need to show for this kind of exhibit removal to be lawful under the APA?

Politics_And_Law

They didn't "update" an exhibit. **They removed the subject.**

*This memo opinion says the National Park Service likely acted unlawfully when it removed slavery-related materials from the President's House site at Independence National Historical Park without the City's required consultation/mutual agreement, and that the City is likely to succeed on the merits at the preliminary-injunction stage.*

**Key points from the opinion itself:**

• The opinion states that on Jan. 22, 2026, NPS removed **34 educational panels** and deactivated related videos at the President's House exhibit that referenced slavery and the people Washington enslaved.

• The City sued under the APA; the court finds the City has standing tied to Congress-authorized cooperative agreements and the City's role/funding in the exhibit.

• The court treats the removals as **final agency action** reviewable under the APA (not just "day-to-day operations").

• On the preliminary record, the court concludes the City is likely to show the removals were *arbitrary and capricious* because they disregarded governing constraints (including mutual-assent requirements and the site's agreed interpretive framework).

**Question:** What would the administrative record need to show for this kind of exhibit removal to be lawful under the APA?