Saved copy of

Plaintiff motion for an emergency hearing

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · 2026-09-16

Back to source details

The saved file is a PDF document of 0.2 MB. What follows is the text taken from it, which is the text the story quotes.

Jump to the cited passage

Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 84 Filed 09/16/26 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOYCE BEATTY,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 25 Civ. 4480 (CRC)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING

Plaintiff requests an emergency hearing regarding Defendants’ unlawful closure of the

Kennedy Center.

Following President Trump’s announcement on Truth Social that the Kennedy Center

would close immediately, see ECF No. 78, Plaintiff has been monitoring the situation at the Center.

Last night, Plaintiff received reports that an announcement had been made over the loudspeakers

at the Kennedy Center that it had been closed. Plaintiff’s undersigned counsel contacted counsel

for Defendants. Counsel for Defendants Brantley Myers responded to Plaintiff’s counsel that “[i]t

is our understanding that someone improperly triggered the fire alarm and the loudspeaker

announcement followed accordingly. The alarm has since been turned off. We do not have any

further information at this time, but the Center is investigating further.” Based on that

representation, Plaintiff understood from Defendants that any announcements regarding closure

were in error.

On the morning of September 16, 2026, a staff member who works for a law firm

representing Plaintiff went to the Kennedy Center. See Decl. of Bridget Kennedy-Bailey, Ex. A.

According to its website, the “current hours of public access” at the Kennedy Center “are Monday-

---

Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 84 Filed 09/16/26 Page 2 of 4

Sunday, 10 a.m.–11 p.m.” 1 At approximately 10:15 am, the staff member sought to enter the

Kennedy Center’s main building. She was prevented from doing so and was informed by several

security staff members that the building is currently closed to the public.

In addition, the staff member was informed that construction is beginning on the interior

of the building and that the public is completely barred from accessing the facility for “safety

reasons.” To be sure, the Court’s order does not prevent Defendants from undertaking renovations

and repairs without shutting down. But at this time, the nature of the construction activities and

any potential demolition are unclear. Given the unexplained and unlawful closure, it is possible

Defendants intend to undertake immediate steps in order to make public access practically

impossible for the foreseeable future, including by demolishing public avenues of access to the

building, and thereby evade the Court’s order by fait accompli.

The Kennedy Center’s spokesperson Roma Daravi has confirmed the closure, stating on

social media that “[c]ompounding systemic infrastructure failures from decades of neglect have

left a crumbling building and safety concerns require an immediate closure of [the Kennedy

Center] main building.” 2

This morning, undersigned counsel contacted counsel for Defendants by email and by

phone and requested that they respond by 12:00 pm today. At 11:36 am, Mr. Myers responded by

email stating “[w]e will respond with an explanation as soon as we can.” In response, the

undersigned counsel requested that counsel for Defendants commit to responding by 1 pm today.

As of the time of this filing, counsel for Defendants have not responded.

1
See The Kennedy Center, Visit the Kennedy Center!, https://www.kennedy-center.org/reach/the-
reach-is-open/.
2
See Roma Daravi (@romadaravi), X (Sep. 16, 2026, at 11:04 AM)
https://x.com/romadaravi/status/2100239282367615386?s=46.
2

---

Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 84 Filed 09/16/26 Page 3 of 4

This Court’s order enjoined the Board from effectuating its shutdown resolutions “until the

Board approves any closure consistent with the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, and the Court

issues a further Order dissolving or modifying this preliminary injunction.” ECF No. 48 at 1

(emphasis added). Were there any doubt, this Court made clear at yesterday’s hearing that if

Defendants intended to close the Center, they could and must move to lift the preliminary

injunction. The Board has voted to close the Center. But the Court has not dissolved or modified

its order. It seems Defendants may be violating the “clear and unambiguous order of the Court.”

Potter v. District of Columbia, 126 F.4th 720, 723 (D.C. Cir. 2025).

Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court set an emergency hearing, either

remotely or in person, to address this apparent violation of the Court’s order. Plaintiff also

respectfully requests that a high-level decision-maker at the Kennedy Center be required to attend

the hearing.

---

Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 84 Filed 09/16/26 Page 4 of 4

Dated: September 16, 2026 /s/ Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky
NATHANIEL A.G. ZELINSKY
(D.C. Bar No. 1724093)
KYLE R. FREENY
(D.C. Bar No. 1684764)
ALEXANDER KRISTOFCAK
(D.C. Bar No. 90045623)

WASHINGTON LITIGATION GROUP
1717 K Street, NW, Suite 1120
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-521-8750
nzelinsky@washingtonlitigationgroup.org
kfreeny@washingtonlitigationgroup.org

NORMAN EISEN
(D.C. Bar No. 435051)
STEPHEN JONAS
(D.C. Bar No. 90037069)
DAVID OGDEN
(D.C. Bar No. 375951)

DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS ACTION
600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE #15180
Washington, D.C. 20003
202-594-9958
norman@democracydefenders.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joyce Beatty