Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(173,937 posts)
Fri Jul 3, 2026, 02:55 AM 14 hrs ago

Appeals court reverses order requiring removed signs to be restored at National Park sites

Source: The Hill

07/02/26 3:30 PM ET


A federal appeals court reversed a lower court’s order requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to restore signs and exhibits that were removed by the Trump administration. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday halted the ruling, which would have restored park materials that the administration says were purged as part of the administration’s effort to get rid of materials that “disparage” Americans.

The judges determined that the Trump administration “made a strong showing that the harms that the district court relied on” to order the restoration of the materials did not meet the standards for an injunction.

Judges David Barron, Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman also found that the groups suing the government “cannot show that a stay of the district court’s order … would cause them substantial injury.” Barron was appointed by former President Obama, while Gelpí and Rikelman are appointees of former President Biden.

The Trump administration last year directed NPS units to review all public-facing content for messaging that disparages Americans or that “emphasizes matters unrelated to the beauty, abundance, or grandeur” of natural features.

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5951950-nps-national-park-displays/



Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnozyaxvl/07022026parks.pdf

REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143617647

RELATED - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143680999
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Appeals court reverses order requiring removed signs to be restored at National Park sites (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 14 hrs ago OP
Disappointing. nt SunSeeker 12 hrs ago #1
So, the courts say that revisionist history is acceptable. OldBaldy1701E 8 hrs ago #2
The lawyer for Democracy Forward noted that this Boston (1st Circuit) ruling was more of a technical/procedural issue BumRushDaShow 8 hrs ago #3
It seems like a ridiculous provision. OldBaldy1701E 7 hrs ago #4
For an "injunction" (or a temporary restraining order, etc) BumRushDaShow 7 hrs ago #5

BumRushDaShow

(173,937 posts)
3. The lawyer for Democracy Forward noted that this Boston (1st Circuit) ruling was more of a technical/procedural issue
Fri Jul 3, 2026, 08:42 AM
8 hrs ago

I.e.., the suit was brought by "groups" who couldn't show what "harm" the erasure of history did to them (personally) vs "harm" to individuals.

This type of technicality happened last year with the DOGE mess and the immigrant deportations, where they had to switch tactics and either have individuals sue OR have a class action of many individuals who could show "harm", do the suit.

OldBaldy1701E

(11,859 posts)
4. It seems like a ridiculous provision.
Fri Jul 3, 2026, 09:15 AM
7 hrs ago

How does one prove harm from the removal of history before said removal has an effect?

Such a thing usually does not have palpable harm until some time has passed. They are using this 'excuse' to ignore the effects of long term harm so that they don't have to acknowledge it in the first place. Their response isn basically "Since there is no harm right this second, there is no harm."

It is one of the ways Monsanto has gotten away with their shit for so long. No 'long term proof'... before the last few years anyway.

BumRushDaShow

(173,937 posts)
5. For an "injunction" (or a temporary restraining order, etc)
Fri Jul 3, 2026, 09:42 AM
7 hrs ago

they are looking for justification for the need for relief from short term/immediate harm.

The cases are still going in the lower courts. Seems the only way to get immediate relief under this regime is through class action suits. I.e., there have been thousands of cases that 45 has lost that were brought by class action - in some cases, something recommended by the appellate courts.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Appeals court reverses or...