From D.C. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins, and Gregory Katsas today in Beatty v. Trump:
On May 29, 2026, the district court issued an order directing several actions, including: (1) removing President Trump’s name from the exterior signage of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and other comparable physical marks, (2) removing his name from the Center’s official website page that carries its title, and (3) withdrawing any trademark filings that used the Trump name as part of the Kennedy Center’s branding. The court set these changes to be completed by June 12, 2026.
At 3:46 p.m. on June 12, 2026—late in the day designated for compliance— Appellants submitted a motion for a stay pending appeal … but they have not demonstrated how they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay… “[A] showing of irreparable harm is a necessary prerequisite for a stay” ….
First, they claim that removing President Trump’s name will cause irreparable costs in terms of money and time that will be wasted “squander[ed].” Since the removal has already taken place, a stay would not avert those harms (even if they could count as irreparable).
Second, Appellants assert that the Kennedy Center would suffer financially if they cannot restore President Trump’s name. They contend that the removal of Trump’s name “threatens to hinder the Center’s fundraising efforts and [will] contribute to the Center’s financial decline.”
However, the appellants have not substantiated these claims with concrete facts or evidence. They rely solely on the Kennedy Center’s Executive Director’s conclusory statements in an undeveloped declaration. See [district court decision] (… concluding 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 secured millions in contributions yet would be in financial ruin if [President] Trump’s name were removed from the title.”). Consequently, the appellants have not produced a factual record demonstrating that they will suffer irreparable harm absent emergency relief (even if some monetary loss pending litigation could qualify as irreparable).
Third, the appellants argue that a separate entity named “The Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Foundation” would lose its fundraising capacity and would have to return all funds “raised or committed” if the Trump name is not restored to the Kennedy Center’s façade. The appellants never raised this factual assertion in district court, and they have offered no explanation for omitting it. 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….
