The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ordered Thursday that the federal government does not have to return signs to national parks and monuments by the end of this week, including ones on climate science and Indigenous history in places like Acadia National Park.
Federal officials were ordered last month to restore the signage by July 3, including dozens of Acadia’s displays on warming oceans and Wabanaki heritage.
The appeals court effectively paused that order on Thursday, a day before the materials were to be restored, while federal officials appeal the June decision.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” directing the U.S. Department of the Interior to ensure signs on federal properties “do not contain descriptions, depictions or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans” and “instead focus on the greatness of the achievements” of the country.
That was followed by a similar order from the secretary of the interior.
By last September, the U.S. Department of the Interior had ordered Acadia rangers to remove signs from some of the park’s most popular sites, including Cadillac Mountain, Great Meadow wetland and the Sieur de Monts Nature Center.
In February, half a dozen organizations, including the National Parks Conservation Association, American Association for State and Local History, and the Association of National Park Rangers, filed a suit in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, under the Administrative Procedure Act. It argued that the removal of the signs violated the National Park Service Centennial Act and is “arbitrary and capricious” as well as “excessive,” according to court documents.
A judge granted that motion last month, and the signs were set to be returned by Friday. However, the Department of the Interior is appealing that decision, and the appeals court ordered Thursday that the signs do not need to be returned for the time being.
The court’s decision cites that the department has made “a strong showing” and is “likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal,” and the return of the signs to national parks and monuments at this stage would be “burdensome” in such “short order.”
It also notes that, should the department’s appeal not survive, the plaintiffs have not shown that the delay “would cause them substantial injury.”