Saved copy of
Preservation plaintiffs’ addendum
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · 2026-08-28
The saved file is a PDF document of 0 MB. What follows is the text taken from it, which is the text the story quotes.
<!-- page 1 -->
Case 1:26-cv-00981-CRC Document 62-1 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
D.C. PRESERVATION LEAGUE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00981 (CRC)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN F.
KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE
PERFORMING ARTS, et al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ ADDENDUM TO JOINT MEET-AND-CONFER REPORT
Plaintiffs fully endorse the plan proposed in the parties’ Meet-and-Confer Report (“the
Report”). Plaintiffs submit this addendum to explain that, because Defendants declared in the
Beatty proceeding earlier this week that demolition of the Kennedy Center was a possibility,
Plaintiffs must reserve all rights to seek emergency relief. Defendants would not agree to include
that information in this Report.
As the Court is aware, Plaintiffs brought this case, in part, because of their credible concern
that the Kennedy Center faced the same threat of demolition as the White House’s East Wing. Mr.
Trump (the Chair of the Center’s Board) stated on social media that he intended to close the Center
for a “[c]omplete [r]ebuilding” of a “new and spectacular Entertainment Complex.” ECF 24-4. Mr.
Trump later stated that while he planned to “us[e] the steel” and “some of” the historic original
marble—a gift from the Italian government, see ECF 45 at 36-37—the building would be “brand
new.” ECF 24-33. The Kennedy Center’s Executive Director, Matt Floca, subsequently disavowed
plans to demolish the Kennedy Center. Crediting those representations over Mr. Trump’s
statements, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion.
---
<!-- page 2 -->
Case 1:26-cv-00981-CRC Document 62-1 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 3
It thus came as a surprise earlier this week when the Department of Justice—opposing
Representative Beatty’s motion for emergency relief in the related case against many of the same
defendants—stated that if Mr. Trump is not allowed to put his name on the Kennedy Center, “the
Center will deteriorate further into an unsafe, decrepit structure that will be required to be taken
down, with a determination to follow on what to build on the site, such as a large outdoor
amphitheater overlooking the Potomac River that has been proposed, by some, for many years.”
Defs.’ Response to Mot. for Emergency Inj. Relief at 2, Beatty v. Trump, No. 25-cv-4480 (D.D.C.
Aug. 24, 2026), ECF 68 (emphasis added).
Defendants’ claims in the Beatty filing were deeply troubling to Plaintiffs because they
represent a fundamental change in Defendants’ posture vis-à-vis the future of the Kennedy Center
building. Plaintiffs therefore proposed that the following modest eleven-word provision be
included in the Report: “Plaintiffs reserve all rights in the event that Defendants’ plans change or
work commences at the Center without the Beatty injunction having been dissolved, including
work on ‘a large outdoor amphitheater overlooking the Potomac River’” (emphasis added), with
a citation to Defendants’ Beatty filing. Even though the quoted language is taken directly from
Defendants’ papers in Beatty, counsel for Defendants informed Plaintiffs that Defendants would
not join any report that included it.
Plaintiffs are thus compelled to submit this separate addendum to explain why they must
reserve rights to seek further emergency relief. Plaintiffs hope Defendants will not try to tear the
Center down. But given Defendants’ written intimation only a few days ago that they might do
just that; the administration’s unannounced demolition of the East Wing; and the “shifting and
contradictory positions” that it has used to advance its illegal ballroom project, Nat’l Tr. for
2
---
<!-- page 3 -->
Case 1:26-cv-00981-CRC Document 62-1 Filed 08/28/26 Page 3 of 3
Historic Pres. v. NPS, Nos. 26-5123, 26-5134, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23770, at *115 (D.C. Cir.
Aug. 7, 2026), it would be irresponsible for Plaintiffs not to reserve those rights.
Dated: August 28, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Gregory Alan Werkheiser /s/ Thaddeus A. Heuer
Gregory Alan Werkheiser (VA210) Gregory B. Craig (164640)
Marion Forsyth Werkheiser (486465) Rawda Fawaz (90015786)
Lydia Dexter (OR0032) FOLEY HOAG LLP
Jessie Barrington (VA224) 1717 K Street N.W.
Caitlin McCurdy (NH0004) Washington, DC 20006
Katherine Lee Sorrell (TX0109) Tel: (202) 223-1200
CULTURAL HERITAGE PARTNERS, PLLC gcraig@foleyhoag.com
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1025 rfawaz@foleyhoag.com
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 567-7594 Thaddeus A. Heuer (pro hac vice)
greg@culturalheritagepartners.com Kevin Y. Chen (pro hac vice)
marion@culturalheritagepartners.com Matthew F. Casassa (pro hac vice)
lydia@culturalheritagepartners.com Marilyn Icsman (pro hac vice)
jessie@culturalheritagepartners.com FOLEY HOAG LLP
caitlin@culturalheritagepartners.com 155 Seaport Boulevard, Suite 1600
katherine@culturalheritagepartners.com Boston, MA 02210
Tel: (617) 832-1000
/s/ Abbe David Lowell theuer@foleyhoag.com
Abbe David Lowell (358651) kchen@foleyhoag.com
Caleb Hayes-Deats (1643213) mcasassa@foleyhoag.com
Isabella M. Oishi (90018056) micsman@foleyhoag.com
Angela Reilly (pro hac vice)
LOWELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1250 H Street N.W., Suite 250
Washington, DC 20005
T : (202) 964-6110
F : (202) 964-6116
alowellpublicoutreach@lowellandassociates.com
chayes-deats@lowellandassociates.com
ioishi@lowellandassociates.com
areilly@lowellandassociates.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
3