City of Philadelphia v. Doug Burgum, et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe
Date: February 16, 2026
Case Type: Motion for Preliminary Injunction under the Administrative Procedure Act
Summary
The City of Philadelphia sued federal officials after the National Park Service removed exhibits about slavery from the President’s House site at Independence National Historical Park. The removed materials told the story of the nine enslaved people held there by President George Washington, including Oney Judge, who escaped to freedom.
Judge Cynthia M. Rufe ruled that the City is likely to succeed on its claims that the federal government acted unlawfully. The court found that removing the displays without consulting the City likely violated federal law, long-standing cooperative agreements between the City and the federal government, and the National Park Service’s own governing documents.
The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring restoration of the exhibit while the case continues.
Background
Independence National Historical Park was created by Congress in 1948 to preserve historic structures connected to the American Revolution and the founding of the United States. The law authorized cooperative agreements between the federal government and the City of Philadelphia to manage and interpret the site. Those agreements required mutual consent for changes and emphasized collaboration.
In 1950, the City and the Secretary of the Interior entered into a formal cooperative agreement. The City retained ownership of key properties, including Independence Hall, while the National Park Service was granted authority to preserve and interpret the site. The agreement required consultation and mutual agreement before major changes could be made.
In the early 2000s, historians confirmed the location of the first presidential residence, where Presidents George Washington and John Adams lived. Research revealed that Washington enslaved nine people at that site: Oney Judge, Austin, Christopher Sheels, Giles, Hercules Posey, Joe Richardson, Moll, Paris, and Richmond. Some, including Oney Judge and Hercules, eventually escaped.
In response, Congress urged the National Park Service to commemorate both the presidential residence and the enslaved individuals who lived and worked there. The City committed approximately $3.5 million to help fund the exhibit. Federal and regional funds were also contributed.
In 2006 and through later amendments, the City and the National Park Service entered into additional agreements governing the development of the President’s House exhibit. The Project Development Plan required that the interpretation focus on the house, the people who lived and worked there, the system of slavery, African-American Philadelphia, and the move to freedom for the enslaved.
The President’s House exhibit opened in 2010 under the title “Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation.” In 2017, the National Park Service adopted a Foundation Document for the park. It identified the “Paradox of Freedom and Slavery” as a core theme and emphasized partnership with the City of Philadelphia.
In 2022, the site was designated as part of the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom because it was the location of Oney Judge’s escape.
On March 27, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14253 titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” The order directed the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that federal historical sites do not contain content that inappropriately disparages Americans and instead focus on the nation’s achievements.
On January 22, 2026, the National Park Service removed 34 educational panels referencing slavery and deactivated related video presentations at the President’s House.
Legal Standard
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show:
- A likelihood of success on the merits
- A likelihood of irreparable harm without relief
- That the balance of harms favors the plaintiff
- That an injunction serves the public interest
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court must set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.
Analysis
Standing
The court first determined that the City had standing to sue. The City was not acting merely as a concerned observer. It was a named partner in federal legislation and binding cooperative agreements. It contributed millions of dollars to create and maintain the exhibit. The removal of the displays affected the City’s legal rights, financial interests, tourism, and its role in telling its own history.
Final Agency Action
The court found that removing the exhibits was a final agency action. It marked the completion of a decision-making process and carried legal consequences, including undermining the City’s contractual and statutory interests.
Arbitrary and Capricious Action
The court concluded that the City is likely to succeed on its claim that the removal was arbitrary and capricious for several reasons:
- The action conflicted with the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act, which aims to preserve and educate the public about sites connected to escape from slavery.
- The federal government failed to consult with the City, as required by the 1948 statute and subsequent cooperative agreements.
- The removal contradicted the National Park Service’s own Foundation Document, which expressly identifies the “Paradox of Freedom and Slavery” as a core theme of the park.
The court emphasized that Executive Order 14253 itself requires action to be consistent with applicable law. An executive order cannot override congressional mandates or binding agreements.
Judge Rufe wrote that it is not disputed that President Washington owned enslaved people and that some escaped. She rejected the government’s argument that it could remove those facts at its discretion. Citing George Orwell’s 1984, the opinion warned against treating historical truth as something that can be erased or rewritten by those in power.
Irreparable Harm
The court found that the City would suffer irreparable harm without relief. The removal damaged the integrity of the site, undermined the City’s role in commemorating its history, and interfered with preparations for the nation’s upcoming 250th anniversary. These harms could not be fully repaired by monetary damages.
Public Interest
The court determined that preserving historically accurate educational displays serves the public interest. The public has a strong interest in lawful government action and in maintaining truthful accounts at national historic sites.
Conclusion
The court granted the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The federal government must restore the President’s House exhibit to the condition it was in before the January 22, 2026 removals. The case will continue while the injunction remains in place.
Why This Case Matters
This case raises fundamental questions about who controls historical interpretation at federally managed sites and how far executive authority extends. It reinforces that federal agencies must follow congressional mandates and binding agreements, even when acting under a presidential executive order.
It also highlights the importance of public memory. The court made clear that historical facts, including uncomfortable ones, cannot be erased simply because current officials disagree with them.
Endnotes
- George Orwell, 1984.
- Executive Order 14253, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” March 27, 2025.
- National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998.
- 1948 legislation establishing Independence National Historical Park.
- Administrative Procedure Act.
Educational Disclaimer: This article is a plain-English educational summary of a federal court opinion. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. For the full legal reasoning and authoritative language, consult the official court opinion.
