House Exhibit
In a recent decision drawing significant attention, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in City of Philadelphia v. Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (No. 26-1348), reversed a district court injunction that had protected a congressionally recognized historical exhibit from removal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appeal had tested whether a federal executive order could be used to dismantle the exhibit; with the injunction now lifted, the government is free to reconfigure the exhibit as it sees fit. At issue is the National Park Service's attempt, pursuant to Executive Order 14253, to remove the six-panel exhibit "Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation" from the President's House site in Philadelphia. The case had drawn an amicus brief from the Council of Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church and historian Dr. Erica Armstrong Dunbar, who urged the court to affirm the district court and preserve the exhibit. Although that effort did not carry the day, the brief remains a powerful account of the history at stake.
The Exhibit and Its Designation
The President's House exhibit sits as an open-air archaeological site near Independence Hall, just blocks from where the Declaration of Independence was drafted. Its six panels were designed to tell a fuller story of the nation's founding—one in which George Washington and the other Founders championed liberty while simultaneously perpetuating slavery, enslaving nine people at the President's House itself. In 2022, in compliance with the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998, the exhibit was designated a National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom site. That statute—passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and with only two dissenting votes in the House—established "an enduring national commemorative Underground Railroad program of education, example, reflection, and reconciliation" and directed the National Park Service to commemorate and interpret that history.
The Lives at the Heart of the Case
The brief grounds its argument in the lives of two individuals the panels commemorate. Ona Judge was born into slavery at Mount Vernon, technically the "property" of the Custis Estate, and from a young age served Martha Washington as her personal attendant. She moved with the First Family to Philadelphia in 1790 and, after six years enslaved in the President's House, escaped in 1796 with the help of the city's free Black community. Washington pursued her recapture for the rest of his life—through newspaper advertisements and federal officials—but Judge lived out her days as a free woman, famously declaring, "I am free now and choose to remain so".
Bishop Richard Allen, born enslaved in 1760, achieved "self-emancipation" by purchasing his own freedom, served the Colonial cause during the Revolutionary War, and built a thriving business in Philadelphia. After leading a walkout from a segregated congregation at St. George's Church, he founded the Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church—the first independent Black church in the United States—and became a leading abolitionist voice. The brief marshals circumstantial evidence suggesting Allen aided Judge's escape.
Proceedings Below and the Appeal
On February 16, 2026, the Honorable Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a memorandum opinion and order enjoining the Park Service from removing the panels. The government appealed to the Third Circuit, and the amici urged affirmance and dismissal of the appeal. The Third Circuit reversed the injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. As a result, the Park Service is no longer enjoined from removing or reconfiguring the panels, and the matter returns to the district court for any remaining proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling.
Central Arguments
The brief's core contention is that removing the panels under Executive Order 14253 erased all reference to Judge, Allen, and other enslaved people. The amici argue this erasure is not only historically indefensible but internally contradictory: the Executive Order's stated purpose was to "focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people," yet few figures embody that greatness more than Judge and Allen. The brief frames the removal as standing in tension with the congressional mandate of the 1998 Act, which recognized that the stories of those who fled bondage risked "fading into obscurity" and directed the Park Service to preserve them.
Why It Matters
Although the appeal did not end as the appellee and amici had hoped, the case remains a compelling study in the scope of executive authority when it intersects with an express congressional directive, and in the persuasive power of historical narrative in amicus advocacy. With the matter now back before the district court, the proceedings on remand bear watching, and the Third Circuit's reasoning is likely to inform how courts evaluate executive action that affects statutorily mandated programs—an issue with resonance well beyond this single exhibit.
This article is one in a series of articles written for Blank Rome Appellate Insights: Winning on Appeal - July 2026.