Appeals court: US not required to restore removed national park material

Plaintiffs failed to show specific harms from removals, court found

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled Thursday that the Trump administration does not have to reinstate materials related to climate change, immigration, and slavery that it has removed from national parks, according to the court’s decision.

The ruling is the latest development in a legal dispute over how history is presented at American public monuments. At President Donald Trump’s direction, the federal government over the past year dismantled plaques and signage that the administration deemed “ideological indoctrination,” a move Trump characterized in a 2025 executive order as the restoration of “truth and sanity to American history,” according to the order.

In May 2025, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum instructed the National Park Service (NPS) to flag for removal any images, descriptions, and narratives that “inappropriately disparages Americans past or living,” according to the directive.

The National Parks Conservation Association and the Association of National Park Rangers, among other advocacy groups, challenged the removals in a lawsuit filed in February 2026 against the Department of the Interior and the NPS.

In June 2026, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley sided with the non-profits and ordered the federal government to reinstall all removed materials within 21 days. In her ruling, Kelley said the administration’s actions “set a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization,” according to the order.

However, on Thursday, the First Circuit panel determined that the lower court had erred in its finding that the advocacy groups would suffer “irreparable harm” if the materials were not promptly restored. The appeals court wrote that the district court’s determination that the Trump administration was “erasing certain histories and degrading public trust” did not amount to “any specific harms likely to be experienced by the plaintiffs,” according to the ruling.

The appeals court also said the non-profits did not present specific evidence demonstrating a link between Burgum’s mandate and their allegations of reputational harm and reduced membership as a result of the removals.

The case continues the broader legal and political battle over federal land management and the administration of historical interpretation within the National Park Service.