Last week, a federal judge ruled against President Donald Trump's administration, which has tried to remove historic content featured at national parks. Trump's administration then demanded that her order be stayed, but on Thursday that too was denied.
Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order that points out in great detail how poorly constructed the demand for a stay was written from the administration. She
ordered the administration to restore all historic materials that were either altered or previously removed. Much of that included references to things like slavery, the Civil Rights movement and Black history as well as references to climate change impacts on the land.
Judge Kelley referenced the pride of all Americans in celebrating the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding. Historians have argued against sanitizing history, and instead embrace remembering where the country was, where the country is today and the work left to be done to create what the Founding Fathers called "a more perfect nation."
National parks preserve the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of American history, said Kelley in the decision last week.
According to the judge's comments on Thursday, the Trump administration's lawyers "have failed to establish the elements necessary to justify a stay."
A main issue, she explained with the administration's argument is that they simply disagree with her. Instead, they must provide legal reasoning to make their case.
"To establish a likelihood of success on the merits, Defendants must do more than express disagreement with the Court’s prior ruling; they must make a strong showing that they are likely to prevail on appeal," she explained.
Further, she wrote, "To establish irreparable harm, Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that, absent a stay, they will suffer irreparable injury that is substantial, certain, and inadequately remedied by monetary damages or later appellate relief. ... Here, Defendants raise three theories: (1) the Injunction Order hampers government speech by preventing the National Park Service (“NPS”) from proffering its preferred narrative at National Parks; (2) implementation of the Injunction Order is practically infeasible and costly; and (3) the Injunction Order conflicts with a recent order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, PA, thus subjecting Defendants to inconsistent obligations with respect to that site. The Court is unpersuaded by these arguments and explains why."
First, she said, the government arguing a free speech defense doesn't hold water because they never raised it at trial to begin with. Second, "Plaintiffs do not assert any First Amendment claim, making the issue of government speech irrelevant to this action and Defendants’ claim of injury unconvincing."
The takedowns continue for 13 pages.
