Which "special interests?" Those who think the Kennedy Center is to be a "living" memorial?

Here's the heart of the argument that Judge Cooper accepted:

"The Kennedy Center's board is a statutory trustee of a federally created memorial and performing-arts institution. It has affirmative duties to maintain the facility, operate it as a performing-arts center, and preserve its memorial function. Before deciding to eliminate normal operations for two years, the board had a fiduciary duty to obtain adequate information, consider alternatives and consequences, and independently balance those competing statutory responsibilities. The board failed to do that. Therefore, the March 16 closure decision was an imprudent and legally defective exercise of its authority."

Here's the Memorandum Opinion if you're interested (knowing you, you might have already read it...I appreciate that you do your own research):

5/29/26 Opinion

If you want to legal nerd out, here's a good ChatGPT summary of the issue:

###########

The judge did not simply assume that the repairs could be done while the Center remained open; he cited the Center's own planning documents, testimony from its facilities executive, and expert evidence.
1. The Kennedy Center's own capital plans called for phased work
This is probably the strongest piece of evidence.
The Center had prepared Capital Building Plans (CBPs) in 2021 and 2022, along with 2024 leak-investigation reports. Those documents identified extensive deferred-maintenance problems.
But, as Judge Cooper noted:
“none called for the complete closure of the Center in order to accomplish the repairs.”
The 2022 Capital Building Plan specifically said that projects were prioritized according to need and:
“scheduled in such a way as to keep the facility operating to the maximum extent, with efforts phased over the multi-year period.”
The 2024 leak report likewise contemplated evaluating “phasing” and the effects on Kennedy Center operations when deciding how to address the problems. ?
Courthouse News
That's significant because these weren't outside critics saying, “You could probably keep it open.” The Center's own pre-closure planning documents contemplated doing the work while continuing operations.
2. The Center's facilities executive testified that the plans had “always been phased”
Matt Floca, who had been the Center's head of facilities and later became its CEO, testified under oath.
Judge Cooper specifically cited his testimony:
“The schedules in the [CBPs] ha[d] always been phased.”
And, even more importantly, Floca admitted during the hearing that phased construction would be possible. ?
GovInfo +1
That doesn't establish that every repair could safely be performed with the entire building continuously open. But it directly undermines the proposition that a two-year complete shutdown was obviously the only possible method.
3. The $257 million congressional appropriation didn't change the plan to a complete closure
Congress appropriated approximately $257 million in July 2025 for:
capital repair;
restoration;
maintenance backlog; and
security structures.
Judge Cooper noted that the infusion of money would accelerate the repairs.
But he also observed that there was still no indication at that point that the Center would have to completely shut down during the work. ?
Courthouse News
In other words, Congress appropriated the money for repairs, not specifically for a two-year shutdown.
4. The work proposed for the shutdown largely matched work already identified in the older plans
This is another particularly interesting point.
Floca testified that the construction contemplated for the two-year closure largely tracked the repair needs identified in the earlier Capital Building Plans and outside consultant reports.
The proposed work fell into three broad categories:
Structural and waterproofing repairs — including problems with soffits and structural steel caused by water intrusion.
Public-facing improvements — such as bathrooms, signage and relocation of the box office.
Mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems — including systems that had experienced substantial failures. ?
Justia Law
That is important because the Center's earlier plans had already contemplated accomplishing the underlying repair work through phased scheduling.
5. There was actual architectural/expert evidence that the work could be phased
Rep. Joyce Beatty's side submitted a declaration from a licensed architect who had reviewed the Center's repair documents.
The architect concluded that:
the work identified in the 2021, 2022 and 2024 assessment documents could be performed while maintaining operations through phased sequencing.
The architect further concluded that a complete two-year closure was not required to accomplish the deferred maintenance. ?
Scribd
Judge Cooper didn't treat that expert opinion as dispositive. But it was important evidence that the board needed to consider.
6. The Center's own history also supported partial/phased closures
Judge Cooper's footnote 31 is particularly revealing.
He cited evidence from industry experts and former Kennedy Center trustees/advisers that peer performing-arts institutions generally handle major construction by closing individual performance spaces when necessary rather than shutting the entire institution.
The evidence described a principle of closing individual venues “with precision to minimize impact on the institution overall.”
The court noted that, given this evidence, a prudent trustee would have wanted to know whether the Kennedy Center's work could similarly be phased.
And, again, Floca admitted that it could be. ?
GovInfo

7. But Cooper acknowledged the counterargument
This is important if you're trying to characterize the ruling fairly.
Cooper did not find that the two-year shutdown was necessarily unnecessary.
He expressly acknowledged:
“The needed renovations are extensive”
and accepted that there were potential safety and liability concerns associated with phased construction. ?
Justia Law
So the judge wasn't saying:
“There's no legitimate reason whatsoever to close the Center.”
His point was closer to:
“There is evidence that the work could be phased, so the board needed to seriously investigate that alternative before deciding that a complete two-year closure was necessary.”
8. The really important problem was what the board didn't investigate
This is ultimately why Cooper stopped the closure.
Floca told the board that he was focused on “the needs of the building.” According to the judge, arts programming wasn't a factor in his analysis.
He essentially analyzed the benefits of closing the building to facilitate construction without doing a comparable analysis of the consequences of closing it.
Cooper cited evidence of potential:
lost ticket revenue;
lost tourism revenue;
difficulty retaining audiences;
reputational damage;
loss of specialized arts professionals; and
donor attrition.