Philadelphia asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to rehear or grant en banc review of its June ruling, seeking to revisit the decision on the President’s House site dispute and the removal of interpretive panels.

New exhibit panels have been installed at the site, replacing material about George Washington’s enslaver role with a version critics say downplays slavery; Interior Department defends the updates as more comprehensive.

The Interior Department declined to comment on the petition, while WHYY underscores its commitment to in-depth journalism surrounding the case.

Philadelphia argues the replacement designs were not tested in lower courts or through normal processes, warning that post-record material could enable agencies to craft favorable after-the-fact facts.

The dispute centers on whether removing panels and adding new exhibits constitutes final agency action and whether such action is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The case traces to a March 2025 executive order directing emphasis on national achievements and removal of material deemed disparaging, later implemented by the Interior Department at the President’s House site.

The President’s House site opened in 2010 after a decade of joint development and investment, documenting both Washington’s life and the system of slavery, and later joined the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom.

The Third Circuit held that the removal was not an “agency action” or final, denying district-court APA jurisdiction; Philadelphia contends this conflicts with Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent.

Philadelphia argues the court’s conclusions conflict with controlling precedent and create a Catch-22 that could allow post-hoc factual rationales by agencies.

En banc reviews are rare, and Philadelphia argues this case meets exceptional-importance standards due to potential broad implications for federal agency conduct across several states.

The petition contends the appellate decision misapplies the Administrative Procedure Act by treating the removal as neither an agency action nor final, potentially shielding agency actions from review.

A district court initially ordered restoration of the exhibit, but the Third Circuit’s June ruling overturned that injunction in a unanimous decision by the panel.