SouthernWorldwide.com – The board of the Kennedy Center made an appeal to a federal court on Friday, seeking to temporarily halt a judge’s directive that would mandate the removal of President Donald Trump’s name from the institution’s signage and official documents. This request came as signs bearing Trump’s name were still visible on the building’s exterior late Friday afternoon.
However, the appeals court later denied the board’s request for an immediate administrative stay, effectively moving forward with the original order.
In an emergency motion submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the board requested both a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay. Their argument centered on the principle that significant physical alterations to the building should not commence before appellate judges have had the opportunity to review the dispute.
The filing specifically asked the court to issue an administrative stay by 7 p.m. on Friday.
A three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit subsequently denied the board’s request for an immediate administrative stay. This decision means the district court’s order will not be temporarily blocked while the appeal process unfolds.
The appeals court has set a schedule for the broader stay-pending-appeal motion, requiring Beatty to respond by June 22, with a reply due on June 29.
Earlier on Friday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper had already denied the board’s request to pause the enforcement of his ruling during the appeal. He determined that the defendants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate either a strong likelihood of success on appeal or the occurrence of irreparable harm.
The Kennedy Center board contended in its emergency filing that the costs associated with removing and potentially reinstalling signage would be unrecoverable if they were to ultimately win their appeal.
Furthermore, the board argued that removing Trump’s name could negatively impact fundraising efforts and potentially cause public confusion if the Center’s name were to change again after a successful appeal. The motion also raised significant questions about the board’s authority and whether Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, possessed the legal standing to initiate the lawsuit.
This latest filing is a direct consequence of Cooper’s ruling on May 29, which established that Congress, rather than the Kennedy Center board, holds the authority over the institution’s name. The judge ordered the removal of Trump’s name from all physical signage, digital materials, and official branding, with compliance expected within 14 days.
In a detailed opinion, Cooper stated that the Kennedy Center’s governing statute “makes crystal clear” that the institution is to be named in honor of President John F. Kennedy and cannot be formally renamed through the board’s independent action.
The judge concluded that Congress bestowed the name upon the Kennedy Center, and consequently, only Congress has the power to alter it.
This ruling emerged from a lawsuit initiated by Beatty, who serves as an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board.
Following the May 29 decision, Kennedy Center Vice President of Public Relations Roma Daravi announced the board’s intention to appeal.
She stated, “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place, and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.”
Beatty expressed satisfaction with the ruling, asserting in a statement that the Kennedy Center “belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump.”
Trump’s name was added to the venue in December, following a unanimous vote by the board. Signage bearing the president’s name was subsequently installed above the existing Kennedy Center lettering.
The board sought emergency intervention from the appeals court on Friday to temporarily block Cooper’s order. By late Friday, the D.C. Circuit had denied this request.
The court has yet to issue a decision on the board’s more comprehensive request for a stay pending appeal, instead establishing a briefing schedule that extends into the latter part of June.
