What has Protect Our Parks filed since vowing to appeal the Obama Presidential Center ruling?
Executive summary
Protect Our Parks has repeatedly litigated and repeatedly appealed decisions rejecting its challenges to the Obama Presidential Center: after filing a second federal complaint in April 2021, the group pursued an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, asked for emergency stays and an injunction from higher courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, filed opening and supplemental briefs on standing, and signaled motions for reconsideration at multiple points as rulings went against it [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The most recent appellate posture ended with the Seventh Circuit and lower courts upholding defendants and allowing construction to proceed, a result Protect Our Parks vowed to keep contesting through available legal avenues [6] [7].
1. The litigation Playbook: new complaint and the formal appeal trail
Protect Our Parks’ legal campaign advanced beyond public statements when it filed a second comprehensive complaint in U.S. District Court in April 2021 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop planning, construction, financing or other activities related to the Obama Presidential Center, then preserved its right to appeal when the district court ruled against it [1] [5].
2. Emergency stays, expedited briefs and an ask to the Supreme Court
Facing construction activity, Protect Our Parks repeatedly sought emergency remedies: the group filed motions for emergency stays and expedited appeals with the Seventh Circuit and even applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for an injunction pending appeal — steps the group publicized in 2021 as it tried to halt work while appellate review proceeded [2] [5].
3. Standing fights and supplemental briefs before the appeals court
A central legal battleground was Article III standing and public-trust claims, and appeals judges demanded supplemental briefing on whether Protect Our Parks had standing to press certain federal claims; the group complied by filing supplemental briefs and other appellate filings focused on the question of who can bring these park-protection claims in federal court [3] [8].
4. Motions for reconsideration and iterative filings after adverse rulings
When appellate panels ruled against the group in 2020 and the district court dismissed subsequent claims in 2022, Protect Our Parks did not cease filings — it announced motions for reconsideration after the 7th Circuit ruling and signaled it would continue pressing the case in higher venues and on limited appellate grounds left open by the courts [4] [7].
5. The April 2024 appellate resolution and what was filed most recently
The appellate arc culminated in an April 2024 decision noting the appeals “represent, we hope, the final installment” and upholding lower-court rulings so construction could proceed; that decision follows the group’s April 2021 complaint, the intervening opening and supplemental briefs, emergency stay motions, Supreme Court applications and motions for reconsideration filed after earlier adverse rulings [6] [1] [2] [4].
6. What the filings sought to accomplish and competing narratives
Protect Our Parks’ filings pressed environmental, historic-preservation and procedural claims — arguing federal agencies failed to properly evaluate impacts and alternatives — while courts repeatedly concluded that many of those complaints implicated city decisions rather than federal agency action and therefore fell outside the relief federal law requires; the Obama Foundation and its supporters framed the litigation as an already-litigated question of standing and deference to city site selection and federal review processes [9] [10] [6]. Reporting and court opinions show both legal strategy (Protect Our Parks pursuing every procedural avenue) and political optics (the Foundation and city emphasizing benefits and finality), and the record indicates the group’s filings after vowing to appeal included appellate briefs, emergency motions, supplemental standing submissions, requests for reconsideration and a sustained appellate docket rather than any newly distinct cause of action [2] [3] [4] [7].