A second attempt to affix President Donald Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center is facing an emergency court challenge, with attorneys for one member of the institution’s board calling the move a “breathtaking act of defiance.”
“It’s déjà vu all over again,” lawyers for Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), who serves as an ex officio board member, wrote in a scathing motion Thursday urging the judge to stop the new signage from going up.
The attorneys argued that the decision to add “renovated and restored by President Donald J. Trump” in large letters below the venue’s official name was an “obvious” attempt to circumvent an earlier court ruling that required the Kennedy Center to remove Trump’s name from the building’s facade.
Sign up for the NOTUS Metro newsletter for essential coverage of the D.C. region.
Trending
The board also voted to rename the center grounds the “President Donald J. Trump Plaza” and add signage that reads, “Endowed by The Trump Kennedy Center Fund” if a newly constituted fundraising group, founded by Trump after his return to the White House last year, reaches a total of $100 million raised.
“In a new and breathtaking act of defiance of Congress and of this Court, Defendants have voted to return President Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center’s façade. This time, Trump’s name will appear on the building’s front portico not once, but twice,” Beatty’s attorneys wrote in the court filing.
Department of Justice lawyers representing the center said Trump’s name could go up as soon as Sept. 8 in a new court filing this week. In response, Beatty’s attorneys are seeking to temporarily block the change, giving the court time to consider whether the board’s latest actions to put Trump’s name on the center violate the previous ruling.
In her latest motion, Beatty’s attorneys argue that the board cannot get around the last ruling by changing the wording of Trump’s recognition. Beatty asked U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, to act before the planned installation of the new signage.
Beatty’s attorneys argue that the legal matter should’ve been “put to rest” the second the last ruling landed.
“But rather than pursue their appeal—which they notably did not seek to expedite—Defendants have engaged in the worst kind of mendacity,” they wrote. “The parties should not be back in front of the Court on this issue. Yet here we are. The Court should make it clear that this behavior must stop.”
Author
