(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration revealed the list of materials that the National Park Service removed from parks across the country that relate to civil rights, diverse populations, science and the environment.

The list was made public on Wednesday as part of a court filing brought by various organizations. The Interior Department is appealing a federal judge’s order to restore those materials ahead of America 250 celebrations on July 4.

Included in the list are vague descriptions of the materials that were removed and their location. The list, however, does not provide images of the content that NPS found objectionable.

Examples of items that were removed include signs about climate change at parks like Acadia National Park in Maine and Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York; materials involving civil rights at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and at the Medgar and Myrtle Evans Home National Monument in Jackson, Mississippi; materials involving slavery at the President’s House in Philadelphia and materials on women’s rights at the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge at the Gateway National Recreation Area in New York.

The list also includes reasons for the removals.

“Disparages Americans past or living” appears to be the reason provided by NPS for the removal of items related to civil rights, diverse communities, slavery and atrocities committed by the United States against Native Americans.

“Unrelated to beauty, abundance and grandeur of the national landscape” was listed as the reason for the removal of items related to science and the environment.

A spokesperson for the Interior Department confirmed to ABC News in a statement that the government is appealing the judge’s order to restore the items.

“We fully believe politically charged language denigrating our Founding Fathers is inappropriate and only further divides Americans,” the spokesperson said. “Through President Trump, we have encouraged Americans to visit our cultural and historic sites and engage in meaningful conversations about the moments that have shaped our country.”

The spokesperson added that the government seeks to “strengthen our shared understanding and ensure that future generations inherit not just the land we love, but the truth of the journey that brought us here.”

ABC News reached out to the Interior Department and NPS for further comment.

U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley ordered the restoration of the materials in a Friday ruling and cast their removal by NPS as “a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization.” She ordered the government to restore all items by July 3.

The federal government has filed a motion asking for an emergency stay pending appeal, which would block the restoration as the appeals court considers the case. In the motion, the government argued that the restoration of the materials would cause “irreparable harm.”

In response, Kelley ordered the government to produce the list of changes and the condition of the materials, writing that this information was necessary for her to consider the government’s argument.

The removal of materials, which relate to civil rights, diverse communities, science and the environment, was made in compliance with a March 27, 2025, executive order in which President Donald Trump ordered the Interior Department to remove content that cast the United States’ “founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.”

The complaint filed in February challenges the removal of the materials and was brought by a coalition of organizations committed to preserving history, the parks and the environment.

“National parks belong to the American people and censorship of any kind goes against the values these places represent,” said Alan Spears, a senior director ” said Alan Spears, a senior director at the National Parks Conservation Association, one of organizations suing NPS. “Americans count on national parks to help us understand our full, rich history. Stories of triumph and tragedy alike deserve to be told out loud at parks.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a longstanding federal ban on guns for unlawful users of any controlled substance is unconstitutional as applied to a Texas gun owner who used marijuana several times a week.

The decision set new limits on federal prosecution of gun owners who are targeted simply for having a history of drug use. It was especially welcomed by millions of American cannabis users who have had to disarm or risk up to 15 years behind bars.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion that unlawful drug use alone cannot be grounds to seek to send someone to prison and potentially force them to give up firearms for life.

“We do not question that sometimes an individual’s unlawful use of marijuana (or any other controlled substance) may render him a danger to others,” Gorsuch wrote. “But, again, the government disclaims the need to show anything like that in this case. … affording the government that kind of broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun would risk allowing it to quickly swallow the Second Amendment.”

The Justice Department has said it prosecutes roughly 300 cases a year in which a violation of the drug-user gun ban is a leading charge. 

Gorsuch said the opinion was narrow and did not disturb other provisions of the law, which includes a ban on guns for drug addicts, ban on guns for people presently intoxicated and prohibition of firearms for those deemed a danger to themselves or others. 

The ruling would not, for example, have prevented the prosecution of Hunter Biden under the law since he was a known and admitted drug addict while in possession of a firearm. 

The decision was most immediately a victory for plaintiff Ali Hemani, a Texas man who admitted to using marijuana “every other day” while keeping a Glock 9mm pistol in his home. He was prosecuted by federal authorities for a single charge of unlawful possession as a drug user but was neither intoxicated nor physically holding the weapon when arrested.

A federal appeals court tossed out the Hemani indictment saying the ban as applied to him was unconstitutional. The justices agreed with that decision. 

While more than 40 states have legalized marijuana in some form, it remains prohibited under federal law.

“Today’s unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties,” Wang wrote in a statement. “The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous.”

The decision was also praised by the National Rifle Association as “a major victory for the Second Amendment and peaceable gun owners across America.” 

“No one should be deprived of their God-given right to keep and bear arms for engaging in nonviolent conduct, and there is no historical justification for doing so,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford in a statement to ABC News. 

Gun safety advocates, which had joined the Trump administration in opposing a rollback of the drug-user gun ban, said the bulk of the law remains a robust and “common-sense” public-safety measure. 

“Although the Court said that the particular law at issue in this case cannot be upheld specifically as to the person challenging it, it reaffirmed the ability of legislatures to restrict firearms access by certain categories of people,” said Kris Brown, president of Brady, a gun safety group. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.