Record · the original document behind a story
Plaintiff’s reply in support of an emergency hearing
Published by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 17, 2026.
Beatty’s chronology supporting her pretext argument about the temporary closure
The cited passage, with surrounding source text
… temporarily but in response to the Board vote held on September 15, 2026. Indeed, despite the parties discussing how Defendants might seek to lift the preliminary injunction, Defendants notably did not inform the Court at the Tuesday hearing that they were planning on shutting down the Kennedy Center imminently to purportedly address safety concerns. Meanwhile, Defendants have now told the Court that they will close the Center—not just for seven days—but indefinitely until they decide when the Center should reopen. This directly contravenes the Court’s preliminary injunction. It is a recipe for Defendants extending their shutdown forever and closing the Kennedy Center for the next two years—the very thing this Court said they could not do without its permission. Finally, Defendants cannot point to any new meaningful information or true exigency to justify this sudden shutdown. Instead, they merely say that Mr. Floca reviewed …
Read the original · Open the copy we saved
Where we use it
- The judge required notice before a Kennedy Center demolition · cited for Beatty’s chronology supporting her pretext argument about the temporary closure
About this saved copy
The fingerprint identifies the saved text used for this record. A different copy has a different fingerprint.
- Text fingerprint (SHA-256)
d983a9436f09e6bf73f1b0ee74371946cdd5e77b0275f80a115d2d0b62e5744a
Timeline entries this record anchors: Temporary closure and emergency motion.