National Parks Conservation Association v. U.S. Department of the Interior

On June 12, 2026, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a stay of the actions challenged in the lawsuit, enjoined the defendants from further implementation of the Secretary’s order, and ordered the defendants to restore and reinstall the removed materials. The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. First, the court found they were likely to succeed on the claim that the order was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to provide a reasoned justification for the directive to review and remove interpretive materials and instead merely cited President Trump’s Executive Order 14253, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated they were likely to succeed on their claim that the Secretary’s order was a departure from prior practice and failed “to recognize or consider substantial reliance interests in the continued availability of interpretive materials at park sites,” as well as on their claim that the defendants “failed to consider important aspects of the problem and acted counter to the evidence before them.” The court further concluded that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the Secretary’s order contravened the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Park Service Centennial Act, and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act. The court held that the Organic Act “contains an express and unambiguous directive that the [National Park Service (NPS)] prioritize conservation of the environment” and found that the NPS’s Management Policies “repeatedly emphasize that ‘conservation’ includes the avoidance of conduct that promotes or results in detrimental impacts to the environment, including climate change, pollution, and other forms of degradation.” The court found that the Secretary’s order and the removal of climate-related interpretive materials conflicted with the Organic Act’s conservation mandate. The court also mentioned the removal of signage regarding glacier melt, carbon dioxide emissions, and climate change in support of its conclusion that the Secretary’s order conflicted with the Centennial Act’s requirement that NPS interpretive and education programs reflect current scientific research and the Omnibus Management Act’s directive to NPS to implement a “broad program” of the “highest quality science and information.” Regarding the other elements of the standard for injunctive relief, the court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a risk of “immediate and irreparable” harm and that many of their alleged aesthetic, recreational, and informational harms were “nonquantifiable.” In addition, the court found that the balance of the equities and public interest weighed in favor of an injunction.

On June 4, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts denied federal defendants’ motion to dismiss six organizations’ lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of the removal of certain displays at National Park sites. The removed materials included exhibits and signs regarding climate change and its impacts at the New York Gateway National Recreation Area, Glacier National Park, Fort Sumter, and Acadia National Park. The district court found that the organizations demonstrated at this stage that they had organizational and associational standing; that the Secretary of the Interior’s order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” was a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act; that the order was ripe for review; and that the order was not committed to agency discretion by law. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the District of Massachusetts was an improper venue. The court also found that the complaint adequately pleaded the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants acted arbitrarily or capriciously and that the complaint’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.