Listen to article \u2022\u00a00:00 min<\/p>\n
Philadelphia is asking a federal appeals court for a redo on the President\u2019s House, saying the court\u2019s June ruling<\/a> that allowed President Donald Trump<\/a>\u2019s administration to swap the exhibit at the historic site<\/a> limited the ability of courts to restrain the executive branch.<\/p>\n The city is seeking a new hearing in front of the entire Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, or the same three judges who issued a unanimous ruling in June, which held the city has no rights over the<\/a> displays at George Washington\u2018s Philadelphia home. <\/p>\n The ruling created a catch-22, the city\u2019s attorneys said<\/a> in Monday\u2019s court filing, not only for the President\u2019s House but for the ability of federal courts in the Philadelphia area to review government actions broadly.<\/p>\n The Third Circuit found that the abrupt removal of the slavery exhibit from the President\u2019s House couldn\u2019t be challenged under the statute that governs final actions by federal government agencies. The removal, the appeals court said, wasn\u2019t an \u201cagency action\u201d nor \u201cfinal.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBoth holdings are wrong, and both are of exceptional importance,\u201d the city\u2019s filing said. <\/p>\n Michael M. Hardiman, the judge who wrote the June opinion, said the removal wasn\u2019t a \u201cfinal\u201d action because the government afterward proposed new panels for the site<\/a>. <\/p>\n The city says the court supplied a road map for federal agencies to evade challenges in court. Under this precedent, the federal government can evade courts\u2019 review by \u201cannouncing \u2014 even mid-litigation \u2014 that it might do something else later,\u201d the city said. <\/p>\n \u00bb READ MORE: Centuries of controversy at the President\u2019s House<\/a><\/p>\n The judges opened the door for federal agencies to defeat lawsuits over their conduct simply \u201cby pointing to what it might do next,\u201d according to Philadelphia\u2019s filing.<\/p>\n It is rare for circuit courts to hold rehearings in front of the original or the full courts, which is known as en banc, said Adam Crews, a professor at Rutgers School of Law.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court will not grant rehearing en banc when the panel correctly states the law and the contested issue is simply the application of the law to specific fact,\u201d Crews said.<\/p>\n Even if the entire court agrees to hear the case, the city might not find a sympathetic audience. <\/p>\n A majority of the court\u2019s 14 members have been appointed by Republicans<\/a>, and six were appointed by Trump<\/a>.<\/p>\n The panel that issued the June ruling included Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee; Luis F. Restrepo, a Barack Obama<\/a> appointee; and Peter J. Phipps, who was appointed by Trump<\/a>.<\/p>\n The city filed the request for reconsideration hours before the deadline to appeal the June order, and at a time that the Mayor Cherelle L. Parker<\/a>\u2019s law department is in transition.<\/p>\n City Solicitor Renee Garcia, who resigned last week<\/a>, argued the case on behalf of the city in a January district court hearing<\/a>. U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe issued a blistering opinion and an injunction ordering the restoration of the exhibits, which was later overturned by the Third Circuit.<\/p>\n Parker appointed Monique Galloway, who worked for the U.S. Attorney Office in Philadelphia, as the city\u2019s next solicitor. <\/p>\n Monday\u2019s filing still carried Garcia\u2019s name.<\/p>\n The Trump administration swapped the President\u2019s House exhibit<\/a> under the shadow of darkness last month, in the early morning hours after the MLB All-Star game<\/a>. The new panels have been criticized<\/a> for their lack of focus on the experience of the nine people held in bondage by Washington in his executive mansion and whitewashing of the first president\u2019s culpability in slavery<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Department of Interior last month spent $181,430<\/a> on new mobile surveillance trailers for the site, citing \u201csafety concerns\u201d following the installation of the new exhibit<\/a>. <\/p>\n The National Park Service and Department of Interior did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n