Kennedy Center renaming could be challenged over congressional authority

“What’s wrong with a name? What we call a rose would smell just as sweet by any other name.” This question, asked by Juliet in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, seems to be occupying much of Washington right now. At a Christmas party attended by many media from Washington, the question was posed to me more briefly and repeatedly: “Can they do this?” “This” was the renaming of the Kennedy Center as the Trump-Kennedy Center. Courts may soon have to confront this quintessentially Shakespearean question, “for never has there been such a painful story.”

Around Christmas, Ohio Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, an official member of the board, made her case for the name change.

As a threshold issue, I will touch on the legal basis of the change rather than its policy basis. Many of us were disturbed by the renaming of the center, which is a memorial to an assassinated president. But what people want to know is whether change can be challenged. The answer is yes, but it won’t necessarily be easy or definitive.

The center was built as the National Cultural Center by a law dated 1958. In 1964, it was renamed the John F. Kennedy Center as a living monument by act of Congress.

SURVIVORS OF THE CONTROVERSIAL ‘OCTOBER 7’ ARE COMING TO THE KENNEDY CENTER UNDER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AFTER PAST THREATS

What is important is how this appointment is made. It was contained in a law passed by Congress. The document titled John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 20 USC 3 states, “No additional monuments or plaques of a memorial nature shall be designed or placed in the common areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

There are exceptions in articles 2 and 3 of this provision:

DAVID MARCUS: FIVE WAYS TO MAKE TRUMP-KENNEDY CENTER GREAT IN 2026

“(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to:

(A) any plaque acknowledging a gift from a foreign country;

(B) any plaque on a movie theater seat or movie theater indicating that such seat or box was given as a gift; And

(C) any inscription on the marble walls in the north or south galleries, the Hall of States, or the Hall of Nations, acknowledging a major contribution; …

(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, testimonials and benefit performances shall not be construed as commemorative.”

TRUMP’S KENNEDY CENTER HONORS RENOVATION, OFFERS STAR-STUFFED ROSTER, NEW MEDALLION AND HISTORIC HOSTING ROLE

The language supports the congressional intent to preserve the monument from any alteration or dilution. The specificity of the exceptions for donor plaques indicates that other significant changes, such as name changes, are prohibited under federal law. Moreover, the center is named by the decision of Congress. It is difficult to find the authority of the board of directors to revoke or delegate this authority.

President Donald Trump (L) presents a medal for the 2025 Kennedy Center Honors to actor Sylvester Stallone (R) during the medal presentation in the Oval Office of the White House on December 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images)

There is a legitimate question as to whether the name change is an “additional monument or plaque”, but it appears to be so. If a simple plaque to donors should clearly be exempt, giant letters dedicating the center to an additional person seem to fit the convention’s purpose.

Still, the Trump administration could quote the maid Sampson from “Romeo and Juliet” and tell the court to “judge this however you wish”; however, the law does not explicitly say that name changes constitute a commemoration.

Challengers could argue that any monument created by Congress, from the Lincoln Memorial to the Kennedy Presidential Library, could be renamed or hyphenated, depending on the board’s interpretation.

MARIA SHRIVER COMMITTED KENNEDY CENTER’S NAME CHANGE DECISION TO TRUMP: ‘IT WILL NOT BE UNDERSTANDABLE’

If the Court finds that the statute reflects a clear intent by Congress to prohibit any changes to the bill, the question is how to challenge it.

In any legal battle, the advantage will likely belong to the challengers if they can meet the current requirements.

Kerry Kennedy, daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and sister of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said, “Three years and one month from today, I’m going to get a pickaxe and pull those letters out of that building, but I’m going to need help holding the ladder. Are you in? I’m applying for my carpenter’s card today, so this will be a union job!!!”

I wouldn’t recommend this approach. Most lawyers try to prevent their clients from falling from too high a height.

The question is who can challenge change. Were members of the Kennedy family injured in a concrete way that would satisfy standing? The associational stance of historic preservation groups can be misleading. But some may soon test these waters.

The clearest way to solve the problem is to let Congress’ voice be heard. It can either confirm the board’s decision or expressly declare that the change is invalid and clarify that the “additional reminder” covers any name change. Either solution could be difficult for a deeply divided Congress. Soon a judge may join in Romeo’s laments: “Oh, teach me how to forget to think!”

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

In any legal battle, the advantage will likely belong to the challengers if they can meet the current requirements. Otherwise, the name may remain the default… or until another administration decides to make another change to the center formerly known as the Kennedy Center.

Of course, Juliet today could similarly solve the naming problem with a hyphenated married name of Juliet Capulet-Montague, but this would clearly be as poorly received as the Trump-Kennedy name. It clearly doesn’t smell that sweet to many people.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

I expect both the court and Congress to follow suit. Unless a quick action is taken by Congress (which seems unlikely), this could result in years of litigation.

But both sides might be wise to heed Shakespeare’s warning in another play that “where two fierce fires meet, they consume that which feeds their anger.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY