Appeals court hears arguments in case over President’s House slavery exhibit removal

by Ian Karbal, Pennsylvania Capital-Star
June 2, 2026

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the city of Philadelphia argued in a federal appeals court Tuesday over whether an earlier decision banning the U.S. government from removing exhibits on slavery from the President’s House historical site in Philadelphia should stand. 

Attorneys for the city and advocacy groups who joined the suit argued that removing the exhibits undermined the founding purpose of the historical site, which was to explore the paradox of slavery and freedom present in the nation’s founding as a democracy that allowed slavery.

The federal government argued that history is inherent in the President’s House structure itself, and that the signs’ removal was the kind of curatorial decision the National Park Service is generally empowered to make in historical sites in its care.

In January, National Park Service workers removed signage memorializing nine enslaved people who lived in the former home of George Washington while he served as president. 

The National Park Service said the move was intended to comply with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump called “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”

Philadelphia sued the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and their respective heads, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Acting National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron, over the move.

The suit argued the removal of the plaques without consulting the city violated the terms of a 2006 agreement between the federal government and the city, which contributed funds to excavate and establish the site, as well as a 1950 congressional agreement establishing the broader Independence National Historical Park, which detailed cooperation between the city and National Park Service. 

In February, U.S. District Court Judge Cynthia Rufe, a George W. Bush appointee, ordered the restoration of the exhibits. The order compared the Trump administration’s actions to those of the fictional Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”

In April, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Thomas Hardiman ordered the federal government to preserve the site and the restored exhibitions as the case continued.

The case has drawn broad attention, and bipartisan support for the city of Philadelphia. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro as well as Republican Sen. Dave McCormick have both backed the city’s efforts to maintain the exhibitions detailing the lives of people enslaved by the nation’s first president and his first lady Martha Washington.

Tuesday’s hearing saw Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory in den Berken argue against the order barring changes to the site’s signage. Philadelphia attorney Anne Taylor argued on behalf of the city. Cara McClellan, an attorney representing the Avenging the Ancestors Coalition and the Black Journey, two groups which filed amicus briefs, was also questioned by the three judge panel.

Hardiman, a Bush appointee, Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo, appointed by former President Joe Biden, and Judge Peter Phipps, appointed during Trump’s first term, heard the arguments.

The city and advocacy groups argued the removal of the signs didn’t just violate agreements between Philadelphia and the federal government that established a level of joint decision making, but that the move undermined the purpose of the site’s establishment.

A cooperative agreement between the city of Philadelphia and the National Park Service explicitly identified “the paradox of freedom of slavery” as uniquely significant to the site’s historical relevance.

“The whole point of the site was to tell the story of the nine people who were held in slavery by President George Washington,” McClellan said. She argued that without signage, the site could not fulfill its purpose for visitors, which is uniquely important ahead of an expected influx of tourists during celebrations of the nation’s 250th anniversary this summer.

“Each person who visits the park and does not learn the realities of the founding era receives a false account of history,” she added. “This is a critical time for our country and in Philadelphia for people to come and be able to reflect and learn about the founding era.”

The attorney for the U.S. government argued the decision to remove the signs was purely a curatorial decision, and that the site itself stands as a testament to the nation’s complex history, regardless of whether the exhibits remained.

In den Berken also said that previous agreements between the federal government and city of Philadelphia should not be construed as giving Philadelphia permanent veto power over decisions on how the site should be curated and interpreted with signage. Typically, those decisions are up to the discretion of the National Park Service at historical sites they oversee.

The site would also continue to show carved footprints representing the escape of Ona Judge, an enslaved maid to Martha Washington who fled to freedom.

He said that the signs were intended to be replaced with new ones. Those plans were quietly posted to a government website in April and first reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer. Just two of the 11 proposed new panels mentioned the enslaved people who lived at the site, which advocacy groups like Avenging the Ancestors Coalition claimed did not go far enough.

“Omission of particular facts is not stating any falsehoods,” in den Berken told the judges. It’s also not denying any facts. This history is available. People can view it. People can research it.”

Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Tim Lambert for questions: info@penncapital-star.com.