Eight groups demand Kennedy Center board resign or appoint receiver

Kennedy Center plaintiffs filed a motion on Thursday demanding the performing‑arts center’s board either resign or appoint a receiver to protect its historic building, according to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The request comes from eight groups that include the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Institute of Architects and the Preservation League of New York, all of which argue that the center’s current leaders are failing to uphold their fiduciary duty to preserve the 1939‑built landmark.

The dispute began last year when the Kennedy Center’s board approved a $20 million renovation plan that critics say will alter the building’s historic interiors and compromise its architectural integrity. The plan, which includes a new lobby and expanded performance spaces, has been stalled by funding gaps and a lack of clear oversight. Preservationists claim that the board has not consulted the building’s architects or heritage experts and that the proposed changes could jeopardize the center’s landmark status. The center’s leadership, in turn, says the upgrades are necessary to keep the venue competitive and financially viable.

The motion cites specific breaches of fiduciary duty, including failure to secure adequate insurance, neglect of routine maintenance, and lack of a long‑term preservation strategy. The plaintiffs also point to recent reports of structural issues in the iconic marble façade and the auditorium’s acoustics. In exchange for the receiver appointment, the groups want a detailed preservation plan and regular reporting on the center’s financial health. The Kennedy Center’s board has denied the allegations, stating that the proposed renovations meet all federal and local historic preservation standards.

If the court grants the motion, a receiver would take over day‑to‑day operations and could halt or redesign the renovation. The decision could set a precedent for how nonprofit cultural institutions manage historic properties. The case will be heard in the coming months, and the outcome could influence future funding and oversight of other landmark venues across the country.