Philadelphia asks appeals court for rare review of President’s House ruling

From Philly and the Pa. suburbs to South Jersey and Delaware, what would you like WHYY News to cover? Let us know!

Philadelphia is asking a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling in the President’s House Site dispute, arguing that the decision to allow the Trump administration to take down panels that highlighted George Washington’s role as an enslaver gives federal agencies a road map for carrying out consequential actions while insulating them from judicial review under federal administrative law.

In a petition filed Monday, city attorneys asked the three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit who decided the case to rehear it, or for an en banc review before the full court.

The petition makes its argument by citing the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that sets rules for how actions taken by federal agencies can be challenged in court. Under the act, a court can overturn a “final agency action” if its conduct is unlawful.

The dispute turns on two threshold questions: whether physically removing the exhibit constituted an “agency action” and, if so, whether that action was final. The 3rd Circuit said the removal met neither requirement. Philadelphia argues both conclusions conflict with controlling precedent.

The city called it a “Catch-22.”

“Left standing, the decision will shield from the APA not only the dismantling of the President’s House, but agency action across this Circuit,” the city wrote.

The Trump administration has already used the June ruling to complete its overhaul of the President’s House Site on Independence Mall. National Park Service workers installed a new exhibit overnight last month, replacing panels that centered the lives of the nine people George Washington enslaved while living in Philadelphia as president.

Critics say the new version softens Washington’s role as an enslaver and shifts the exhibit’s focus away from those held in bondage at the nation’s first executive mansion. The Department of the Interior has defended the displays as a more comprehensive account of the site.

The city’s latest filing does not directly ask the appeals court to judge the historical merits of the exhibit. Instead, it challenges the legal reasoning behind the court’s conclusion that the park service’s removal of the original panels could not be reviewed under federal administrative law.

The 3rd Circuit held that the park service’s decision to strip the President’s House of nearly all its interpretive material was neither an “agency action” nor final. Without a reviewable final agency action, the panel concluded, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Philadelphia’s four APA claims.

Philadelphia also challenges the panel’s conclusion that the removal was not final. The city argues finality should be determined by examining the government’s action when it occurred, not plans the agency announced afterward.

“By resolving a contested question of finality on the basis of extra-record website material, the decision invites agencies to generate favorable post-hoc facts,” city attorneys wrote.

They further objected to the panel’s reliance on replacement designs that were never introduced in the lower court or tested through the normal legal process.

City attorneys contend both conclusions conflict with U.S. Supreme Court and 3rd Circuit precedent, possibly affecting challenges to federal agencies throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

The dispute began after President Donald Trump issued a March 2025 executive order directing federal historical sites to emphasize the country’s achievements and remove material deemed to “inappropriately disparage” Americans. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum later ordered the park service to implement that directive.

On Jan. 22, park service employees removed almost every interpretive panel from the President’s House and shut down its video presentations without notifying the city.

Philadelphia sued that same day.

The city and park service had worked together for more than a decade to develop the exhibit, which opened in 2010 after the city invested millions of dollars in the project. Their joint development plan required the site’s interpretation to include the people who lived and worked in the house and the systems and methods of slavery.

The President’s House later became part of the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, in recognition of its connection to Oney Judge, who escaped Washington’s enslavement in 1796.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe initially sided with Philadelphia and ordered the government to restore the exhibit. During an earlier hearing, Rufe called the administration’s claim of broad control over the history presented on federal property “dangerous.”

The administration appealed, arguing the federal government owned the site and the exhibit and was entitled to determine what message it conveyed there.

The 3rd Circuit overturned Rufe’s injunction on June 18. The unanimous ruling was written by Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, and joined by Judges Luis F. Restrepo, appointed by Barack Obama, and Peter J. Phipps, appointed by Trump.

En banc reviews are rarely granted and are generally reserved for cases involving conflicts with controlling precedent or questions of exceptional importance. Philadelphia argues this case meets both standards because the decision could make a broad category of federal conduct unreviewable.

A spokesperson with the Department of the Interior did not respond to a request for comment.