Well, somebody go check on the progressive legal establishment because they just took one right on the chin from a very unlikely source.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is about as left-leaning as a federal appellate court can get without literally wearing a "Feel the Bern" T-shirt under the robes, just sided with the Trump administration in the fight over what gets displayed in America's National Parks. As USA Journal reported, the court granted a stay that effectively lets the Department of the Interior keep its changes in place while the case proceeds. On Independence Day weekend, no less.
Here is the backstory. President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of the Interior to review National Park Service displays and pull content that, in the administration's view, unfairly disparages Americans past or present. The NPS then removed or flagged hundreds of interpretive materials from park sites across the country. We are talking about climate change materials, one-sided historical presentations, and content that apparently treated every chapter of American history like a term paper titled "Why Everything Is Bad."
A coalition of organizations sued in February, arguing that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's review order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Massachusetts District Court Judge Angel Kelley, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order. She then went a step further and commanded the Department of the Interior to physically reinstall every single piece of removed material by July 3rd. The day before Independence Day. On America's 250th birthday. Because nothing says "happy birthday" like forcing park rangers to spend the holiday weekend hanging signs back up.
The Trump administration appealed and asked for a stay. And the First Circuit said yes.
Now, before anyone pops champagne or throws a tantrum, this is a procedural ruling, not a final decision on the merits. The court did not say the administration was right or wrong on the substance. What they found was that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a basic legal requirement for getting a preliminary injunction. The organizations could only point to alleged harms suffered by their members, and apparently only one member's specific grievances even made it into the court filings. That is not exactly a mountain of evidence.
The practical result is simple. Burgum's order stands for now. No displays have to be restored while the appeal continues. NPS personnel who would have spent Independence Day weekend in a frantic reinstallation frenzy can instead focus on welcoming the millions of visitors who showed up to celebrate the country's birthday.
The bigger picture here is pretty straightforward. For years, progressive administrators at the NPS made ideological choices about what stories to tell and how to frame them. The Trump administration is now making different choices. Whether you call that censorship or common sense probably depends on which cable news channel you watch.
But the underlying question is fair: if the previous administration could shape what goes on the walls of national monuments, why exactly is this one forbidden from doing the same thing?
The case will keep working its way through the courts. For now though, the message from one of the most liberal appellate courts in the country is that a president gets to decide what his own executive branch puts on display. A district judge in Massachusetts does not get to override that with a deadline timed to the Fourth of July like some kind of patriotic homework assignment.
Read more conservative news commentary at: USA Journal News
