The Kennedy Center announced in a recent court filing that it will not attempt to reattach President Donald Trump’s name to its facade until after September 8. This decision comes in response to ongoing legal disputes surrounding the performing arts venue’s future.

The Kennedy Center’s board, closely aligned with Trump, seems determined to challenge an earlier court order that mandated the removal of Trump’s name from the building. However, the center committed to pausing any action on this matter until after Labor Day to allow for further legal proceedings.

Representative Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat and board member, urged U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to expedite the ruling. Beatty’s legal team contends that there is reason to believe those supportive of Trump will try to implement their latest resolution as soon as the legal pause ends.

A recent board meeting intended to focus on renovation plans shifted towards attaching Trump’s name to the building. The proposal includes naming the plaza after Trump and updating the facade to read “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump.” Such changes depend on whether the Trump Kennedy Center Fund can raise $100 million.

The board also voted for a two-year closure for comprehensive renovations. Signature events like the Kennedy Center Honors and the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor will relocate during this time. The National Symphony Orchestra has announced plans to hold its next season at multiple venues in Washington.

Earlier, Judge Cooper had ruled in May that the letters spelling out Trump’s name on the facade were illegally added and must be removed. A tarp currently covers the area pending the removal process. The Kennedy Center has not committed to removing this tarp as it is reportedly important for structural repairs and water testing on the building.

Beatty’s lawyers, Norm Eisen and Nathaniel Zelinsky, questioned the integrity of the board’s decision-making process. This scrutiny relates to concerns raised by Judge Cooper about a previous vote on the center’s closure. Heading into the recent meeting, the board was presented with three renovation options, but ultimately a full two-year closure was recommended for cost-effectiveness and safety reasons.

Eisen and Zelinsky pointed out that the board received key documents only days before the meeting. These documents were suspected to have existed before Judge Cooper’s May ruling, insinuating pre-planned decisions about the center’s operations.