Case Explained: CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; U.S DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; DIRECTOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 Docket: 2:26-cv-00434) The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s preliminary injunction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Counts II through V for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. While the court affirmed that the City of Philadelphia possessed Article III standing based on alleged violations of residual contractual duties regarding the maintenance of the President’s House exhibit, it held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not permit judicial review of the National Park Service’s (NPS) removal of interpretive panels under Counts II through V. The court applied the APA’s definition of “agency action” and the two-pronged test for “final agency action” established in *Bennett v. Spear*. First, the court ruled that NPS’s decision to remove exhibits did not constitute a “rule, order, license, sanction, relief,” or their equivalent under 5 U.S.C. § 551(13), because the City lacks ownership of the property and the action does not fit statutory definitions of agency enforcement or adjudication. Second, the court found the action was not “final” because NPS had publicly posted replacement exhibits online and retained the ability to reinstall them, meaning the decisionmaking process was not consummated and no legal consequences had definitively flowed from the removal. Additionally, the court clarified that 16 U.S.C. § 407n’s mutual-agreement requirement applies only to Independence Square (Independence Hall National Historic Site) and does not extend to the President’s House site, which lies outside that specific statutory boundary. The practical consequence is that the preliminary injunction requiring NPS to restore the removed exhibits is dissolved. The District Court must dismiss the City’s claims challenging the exhibit removal under the APA and ultra vires theories (Counts II–V). Count I, alleging breach of contract, remains pending before the District Court for disposition consistent with this opinion, though the court noted it lacks jurisdiction to review that specific count in this interlocutory appeal. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.