Case: Douglas v. National Park Service
1:26-cv-02016 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: June 6, 2026
Closed Date: July 7, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the Trump Administration’s authorization of "UFC Freedom 250," a live cage-fighting event staged by Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) on the White House South Lawn on June 14, 2026. On June 6, 2026, two former U.S. government employees filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and several of their respective officials in their official capacities. The event was alleged to be deeply commercial in nature: the UFC is a private, for-profit mixed martial arts promotion which sold VIP sponsorship packages for $1–1.5 million per person, sold broadcast rights exclusively to a paid streaming platform, and allowed corporate advertisers to display branding adjacent to the White House and Lincoln Memorial. The plaintiffs further alleged that President Trump purchased up to $50,000 in TKO stock (UFC's parent company) earlier in 2026, giving him a personal financial interest in the event's success, and that the UFC constructed a massive 92-foot-tall, 600-ton steel structure called "the Claw" on the South Lawn without congressional authorization and without the required environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Represented by the Public Integrity Project, the plaintiffs asserted that the event violated NPS Capital Region Regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and lacked necessary congressional authorization. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that the Trump Administration’s event was unlawful, a stay of the event, injunctive relief including a temporary restraining order to prevent construction of structures on the White House lawn, and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Amit Mehta.
On June 7, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order or, in the alternative, an expedited preliminary injunction to stop the event from taking place on the scheduled date. The court denied the motion for temporary restraining order on June 12, 2026. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of standing and irreparable harm, and because the equities and public interest weigh against emergency relief. 2026 WL 1701344.
On July 7, 2026, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.
Summary Authors
(6/14/2026)
Ian Gibson (7/14/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73450743/parties/douglas-v-national-park-service/
Mehta, Amit Priyavadan (District of Columbia)
Ballou, Brendan (District of Columbia)
Ward-Packard, Samuel (District of Columbia)
Sirkovich, Eitan (District of Columbia)
CAMP, JOSEPH A. (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73450743/douglas-v-national-park-service/
Last updated July 28, 2026, 3:39 p.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 6, 2026
Closing Date: July 7, 2026
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two former U.S. government employees.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
National Park Seervice
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Leave Act, 5 U.S.C. § 6329a
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-02016
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Douglas v. National Park Service, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48212/ (last updated 7/14/2026).