The Trump administration violated federal law when it removed the LGBTQ+ Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument in New York City, according to a lawsuit filed by several nonprofit groups on Tuesday.

The lawsuit, led by the Gilbert Baker Foundation — which honors the artist who created the original, eight-striped rainbow Pride flag in the 1970s — alleges that the administration’s “arbitrary and capricious” removal of flag earlier this month violates the Administrative Procedures Act and that the administration “misinterpreted” its own policies as a pretext for the flag’s removal.

Related

Trump administration rages as activists & Dems re-raise rainbow flag at Stonewall monument

“The policies the government says require removing the Pride flag expressly permit the [National Parks Service] to fly other flags that provide historical context to national monuments—which is precisely what the NPS official Pride flag did at Stonewall for many years,” the lawsuit states.

As the New York Times notes, an NPS-sanctioned Pride flag that has for years flown in Christopher Park, the site of the Stonewall Monument in New York’s Greenwich Village, was removed sometime during the night of February 8 with no notice or explanation. NPS later cited new guidance issued by the Trump administration in January mandating that “only the U.S. flag and other congressionally or departmentally authorized flags are flown on NPS-managed flagpoles, with limited exceptions.”

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

But according to the lawsuit, neither the Department of the Interior policy on flag displays nor the administration’s January directive require the removal of the Pride flag.

“The Policy permits officials to ‘authorize the flying of flags and pennants, other than [U.S. and DOI flags], as appropriate, provided flags and flagpole space are available for this purpose” and “the Directive provides an exemption for flags that ‘provide historical context,’” according to the complaint. “Under the policies that they are purporting to be implementing, Defendants had discretion to allow the Pride flag to be displayed at the Stonewall memorial.”

“This was no careless mistake. The government has not removed other historical flags at other national monuments, most notably Confederate flags,” that lawsuit alleges. “Meanwhile, the assault on Stonewall is the latest example in a long line of efforts by the Trump Administration to target the LGBTQ+ community for discrimination and opprobrium.”

The complaint cites several examples over the past year, including the administration’s removal of any mention of trans people from its website for the Stonewall Monument, its deletion of NPS websites covering LGBTQ+ history, the firing of an FBI employee allegedly for displaying a Pride flag at his desk, and the renaming of the a ship previously named after trailblazing gay politician Harvey Milk.

“These actions alone support a strong inference of animus against the LGBTQ+ community and that Defendants’ reasons for removing the flag were pretextual,” the lawsuit argues. “Because Defendants’ reasons were pretextual and based on an impermissible reason, i.e., animus toward the LGBTQ+ community, they are arbitrary and capricious.”

The lawsuit notes that while local lawmakers restored a Pride flag in Christopher Park last week, “Defendants have not restored the NPS-sanctioned Pride flag” and “continue to prohibit its display.”

The Gilbert Baker Foundation and other plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an order requiring the administration to restore the officially sanctioned Pride flag to the monument and to permanently enjoin the administration from removing it without, at minimum, taking into account the effect such a change would have, in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act.

“The government’s decision is deeply disturbing and is just the latest example of the Trump administration targeting the LGBTQ+ community,” Alexander Kristofcak, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said according to Courthouse News Service. “At best, the government misread its regulations. At worst, the government singled out the LGBTQ+ community. Either way, its actions are unlawful.”

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.