National Parks Conservation Association v. Department of the Interior
Overview
Overview
A coalition of national-park, history, and science organizations, led by the National Parks Conservation Association, sued the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service over a Secretary's order directing the removal and alteration of park exhibits and signage. The plaintiffs bring an Administrative Procedure Act challenge, asking the court to declare the order unlawful, vacate it, and enjoin its enforcement.
The Facts
Facts
On February 17, 2026, six organizations (the National Parks Conservation Association, the American Association for State and Local History, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, the Society for Experiential Graphic Design, and the Union of Concerned Scientists) sued the Interior Department, Secretary Doug Burgum, the National Park Service, and NPS official Jessica Bowron in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that, implementing a Secretary's order, the Park Service removed exhibits and signage addressing slavery, the Civil Rights movement, and climate science, including an exhibit on people enslaved by the first President at Independence National Historical Park and climate-threat signage at Fort Sumter.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the Secretary of the Interior's order directing the removal and alteration of national-park exhibits and signage is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and in excess of statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Rules
Rule
The Administrative Procedure Act requires a reviewing court to set aside agency action that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,' or 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations,' 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A), (C). The statutes governing the National Park Service direct that the parks be managed 'for the benefit and inspiration of all the people of the United States.'
The Application
Analysis
The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the order unlawful, vacate it under 5 U.S.C. section 706, issue a stay under section 705, and enjoin the defendants from implementing the order or any substantially similar directive. The case is assigned to Judge Angel Kelley. The parties are now in the administrative-record phase: a September 15, 2026 electronic order (Dkt. 74) revised the schedule, requiring the government to file the administrative record by September 17, 2026 and setting a summary-judgment briefing track.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The case is pending and there has been no ruling on the merits. Under the revised schedule, the dispute is set to be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record, with the plaintiffs' motion not due until December 2027. What to watch: whether the plaintiffs seek preliminary relief to stop further removals while the case proceeds, and how the court rules once the administrative record is filed.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support