Analyses / Public Summary / 119 · S 791 Public Summary

119-S-791 Journalist Public Summary

119 · S 791 Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2025

S. 791 would make Justice Thurgood Marshall’s former Baltimore elementary school a National Historic Site affiliated with the National Park System, keeping the site locally owned while allowing the Park Service to help with interpretation and preservation; it’s sponsored by Maryland senators, has no federal takeover, and last had a Senate subcommittee hearing on December 9, 2025.

Published
10 Dec 2025
Updated
10 Dec 2025
Tags
US Congress · S. 791 · National Park Service
Unvetted
01 · Section

Public Summary: Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2025 (S. 791)

Headline Summary: Make Justice Thurgood Marshall’s old Baltimore elementary school a National Historic Site—locally owned, with optional National Park Service support.

What It Does: The bill designates Public School 103 (1315 Division Street, Baltimore), where Thurgood Marshall attended elementary school, as the Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site. It would be an “affiliated area,” meaning the site stays under local ownership and day-to-day management by the Beloved Community Services Corporation, while the U.S. Department of the Interior may provide technical and financial assistance through agreements. The Secretary of the Interior is not authorized to acquire the property or assume overall operating costs, though Congress may appropriate funds to support the Act.

  • Who’s For It: Sponsors are Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D–MD) and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D–MD), who introduced the bill on February 27, 2025.
  • The bill names the Beloved Community Services Corporation—the current owner-operator of the restored school building—as the management entity for the site.
  • Supporters generally argue this honors a major civil-rights figure, preserves a historically significant place, and strengthens education and heritage tourism in West Baltimore.
  • Who’s Against It: The bill text lists no formal opposition. Potential concerns could include:
  • - Federal spending or adding commitments while NPS faces maintenance backlogs elsewhere.
  • - Preferring full NPS ownership and staffing (a traditional park unit) instead of an affiliated model, or vice versa.
  • - Questions about long-term funding and clarity of roles between the nonprofit and NPS.

What’s Next: The bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on February 27, 2025. The Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on December 9, 2025. Next steps typically include a full committee markup and vote; if approved, the bill would go to the full Senate, then the House, and, if passed by both, to the President for signature.

Discussion