From D.C. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins, and Gregory Katsas today in Beatty v. Trump:
On May 29, 2026, the district court ordered, among other things, (1) the removal of President Trump’s name from the façade of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and all other similar physical signage, (2) the deletion of his name as part of the title of the Center on the official website, and (3) the withdrawal of any trademark applications that included President Trump’s name as part of the Kennedy Center’s appellation. The court further ordered those changes to be made by June 12, 2026.
At 3:46 p.m. on June 12, 2026—late afternoon on the compliance date— Appellants filed a motion for a stay pending appeal …. [But Appellants] have failed to show how they will be irreparably injured absent a stay…. “[A] showing of irreparable harm is a necessary prerequisite for a stay” ….
First, they argue that removal of President Trump’s name will inflict irreparable harm in terms of expense and time “squander[ed][.]” Since that removal has already occurred, a stay would not avert those harms (even assuming they would qualify as irreparable).
Second, Appellants allege financial harm to the Kennedy Center if they are not permitted to reinstate President Trump’s name. They argue that removal of President Trump’s name “threatens to impede the Center’s fundraising efforts and [will] contribute to the financial decline of the Center.”
Appellants, however, have failed to support this assertion with any specific facts or evidence. They offer only the conclusory assertions of the Kennedy Center’s Executive Director that were made in a factually unsupported declaration. See [district court decision] (… finding that “[t]here is no proof that current or future donations hinge on President Trump’s name being on the building”); id. (“[T]he declaration is internally inconsistent in suggesting that the Center has already amassed millions in contributions yet would be in financial ruin if [President] Trump’s name were excised from the title.”). As a result, Appellants have failed to “come forward with a factual record showing that [they] will be irreparably harmed” absent emergency relief (even assuming some monetary loss pending litigation would qualify as irreparable).
Third, Appellants argue that a new entity named “The Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Foundation” will no longer be able to fundraise and must return all money “raised or committed” to it if the name “Trump” is not returned to the Kennedy Center’s façade. Appellants never raised that factual contention in district court, and they have given no explanation for failing to do so. Such a post hoc argument cannot demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the district court….
Because Appellants have failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, we need not address whether Appellants have any likelihood of success on the merits….
