Saved copy of
Defendants’ response to the emergency-hearing motion
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · 2026-09-17
The saved file is a PDF document of 0.1 MB. What follows is the text taken from it, which is the text the story quotes.
<!-- page 1 -->
Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 86 Filed 09/17/26 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOYCE BEATTY,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 25-4480 (CRC)
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING
---
<!-- page 2 -->
Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 86 Filed 09/17/26 Page 2 of 5
On May 29, 2026, this Court preliminary enjoined Defendants from taking “steps to further
effectuate” a March 16, 2026, Board decision to close the John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts for “such time as is required to complete the repair and restoration funded by
Section 60025 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Doc. 48 at 1. Defendants are in compliance
with this order and, after two recent Board votes, intend to move for dissolution of the preliminary
injunction to allow for the closure necessary to complete the restoration and renovations. See Doc.
82 at 1 (providing that Defendants may move to vacate the preliminary injunction “by September
18, 2026”).
Yesterday morning—separate from any Board decision related to closure for ongoing
renovations—Matt Floca, the Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, decided to
temporarily close the Center due to “acute risks to public safety resulting from continued structural
deterioration at the Center.” Declaration of Charles Matthew (“Matt”) Floca (Floca Decl.) ¶ 3. 1
During this temporary closure, “which will last for seven days, unless extended, [Floca] intend[s]
to assess existing safety risks in those portions of the main building exhibiting severe structural
deterioration.” Id.
Mr. Floca did not make this decision, which is within his authority, in a vacuum. Instead,
his decision “was and has been informed by the wide array of evidence made available to [him] in
the course of [his] duties, which [he] evaluated based on [his] more than 15 years of experience in
managing complex programs, facilities, and large-scale budgets.” Id. ¶ 4. This evidence includes
a recent assessment by the engineering firm Walter P Moore, which “indicated more advanced
1
Two nights ago, “an alarm was improperly triggered in the Center that communicated
that people should leave the building and that the building was closed to public access.” Floca
Decl. ¶ 9. An investigation is underway, as Mr. Floca is unaware “of a legitimate reason why that
alarm may have been triggered.” Id.
1
---
<!-- page 3 -->
Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 86 Filed 09/17/26 Page 3 of 5
deterioration in the overhead soffit panels than recently documented” and revealed an active falling
hazard. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. These soffit panels are 2,500-pound slabs of concrete hanging 60 feet in the
air around the full exterior of the center. The evidence considered by Mr. Floca also includes the
“structural failure of a five-by-four-foot piece of one-inch-thick ceiling plaster on September 4 due
to water damage following severe storms in the District of Columbia.” Id. ¶ 4. The Center, with
the assistance of third parties, is currently investigating the failure of the plaster, among other
issues. Id.
No part of the Court’s preliminary injunction order forbids a temporary closure like this
one. Contra Doc. 84 at 3. This Court’s order forbids only the further effectuation of a Board
decision to close for “such time as is required to complete the repair and restoration funded by
Section 60025 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Doc. 48 at 1. This Court did not enjoin the
Center from temporarily closing the building to address significant safety hazards. See United
States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2011) (explaining that language
must be read “in conjunction with the purpose to be accomplished by the requirements set forth
in” the injunction). Indeed, in the opinion concerning the preliminary injunction, the Court refused
to interpret the relevant statutes to require the Center “to remain open at all times” and recognized
that the Center could “close[] on an emergency basis.” Doc. 50 at 70. And Beatty seemed, at one
point, to agree that an “emergency” could warrant closure. See Doc. 13-1 at 22. This is a case in
equity, after all, and there is nothing equitable about forcing management to keep a building open
in these circumstances. Cf. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U.S. 805, 807 (1869) (a court
must “exercise its flexible jurisdiction in equity as to protect all rights and do justice to all
concerned”). For all these reasons, the Court should refuse Plaintiff’s suggestion that Defendants
are in violation of the preliminary injunction.
2
---
<!-- page 4 -->
Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 86 Filed 09/17/26 Page 4 of 5
As for Plaintiff’s pending motion, the request for a hearing should be denied. There is no
emergency caused by Defendants’ temporary closure of the Center; the only emergency is the risk
to the public and the Center’s employees and artists if it remained fully open without further safety
assessment. As Plaintiff’s motion notes, her attorneys communicated their concerns to
Defendants’ attorneys, and Defendants’ attorneys agreed to discuss those concerns with Plaintiff’s
counsel. According to Plaintiff, her attorneys sent a staff member to conduct an investigation in
the morning, and while their staff member was on site demanded a response from Defendants first
by noon and then by 1 p.m. There is no justification for Plaintiff’s motion without Plaintiff having
allowed a reasonable time for Defendants to respond to their requests. In any event, Defendants
have filed with this response a declaration explaining yesterday’s closure. The Court should deny
Plaintiff’s request. If, however, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing, Mr. Floca intends
to attend the hearing and provide live testimony if the Court requests it.
3
---
<!-- page 5 -->
Case 1:25-cv-04480-CRC Document 86 Filed 09/17/26 Page 5 of 5
Dated: September 17, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
ERIC J. HAMILTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Brantley T. Mayers
BRANTLEY T. MAYERS
Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 890-9874
brantley.t.mayers@usdoj.gov
CHRISTOPHER M. LYNCH
Chief Litigation Counsel
WILLIAM S. JANKOWSKI
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Counsel for Defendants
4