In a ruling on April 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) from prohibiting grant recipients from using grant funding to promote “gender ideology” as defined by President Donald Trump in an executive order issued on January 20.
The plaintiffs in the case, four arts organizations represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, filed suit in March, claiming that Trump’s order unlawfully barred them from potentially receiving NEA funding due to their history of creating and promoting art “that promotes and affirms the lived experiences” of transgender and nonbinary people. “The NEA’s ‘gender ideology’ prohibition is contrary to the agency’s governing statute, arbitrary and capricious, and violates the First and Fifth Amendments by imposing a vague and viewpoint-based restriction on artists’ speech,” the filing read. “Plaintiffs request that the Court declare the “gender ideology” prohibition unlawful, set it aside, and enjoin its application facially and as to Plaintiffs.”
In his ruling, Judge William E. Smith acknowledged that the plaintiffs “demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act and First Amendment claims and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the prohibition were imposed.” However, he noted that, following the complaint’s initial filing, “the NEA rescinded its implementation of the EO pending further administrative review, which will conclude in a matter of weeks. Notwithstanding the NEA’s pivot, under the voluntary cessation doctrine, Plaintiffs’ claims are not moot. But due to the posture of the case, the Court finds that the balance of equities tips in Defendants’ favor and that an injunction is not in the public interest at this time.”
In a statement, ACLU senior staff attorney Vera Eidelman said that the opinion “makes clear that the NEA cannot lawfully reimpose its viewpoint-based eligibility bar.” Still, added Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, “The court’s decision will leave our clients in a state of censorial limbo. We are committed to continuing this case, defending the arts, and resisting attempts to stifle speech simply because the current administration does not like or agree with it.”
The NEA first announced changes in guidance for its grant applicants in February, requiring that all applicants “comply with all applicable executive orders while the award is being administered” or risk having their funding rescinded. The announcement was quickly met with outrage from cultural organizations including the Authors Guild, National Coalition Against Censorship, and PEN America.
The legal requirements laid out by the NEA, if implemented, would prohibit organizations seeking funding from operating any programs dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion or promoting what the administration refers to as “gender ideology.” The organization paused enforcement of the requirements while the litigation in Rhode Island was ongoing. Now that the case has concluded, whether the agency’s actions will be influenced by the judge’s opinion remains to be seen.
The decision comes as the advisory body Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), at the behest of the president, works its way through such federal agencies as the Institute for Museum and Library Services and the National Endowment for the Humanities—although DOGE has yet to arrive at the NEA. To date, DOGE’s efforts have resulted in the elimination of large portions of congressionally appropriated grant funding.
Today marks the deadline for this year’s NEA grant application. The agency is set to announced how it will implement the executive order by the end of the month.
