Summary
- Federal judge: humanities grant cuts unlawful.
- Abrupt termination violated Congressional approval.
- Humanities groups’ lawsuit allowed to proceed.
- Funding cuts risk layoffs, cancel programs.
- Judge: Congress controls budget decisions.
The National Endowment for the Humanities' awards to thousands of organizations nationwide, including humanities councils, museums, historic sites, archives, libraries, educators, and media outlets, were canceled by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in April.
The Federation of State Humanities Councils and Oregon Humanities filed a lawsuit against DOGE and the endowment in May, claiming that the abrupt funding reductions constituted an "attempted destruction, spearheaded by DOGE, of the congressionally established federal-state partnership."
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon wrote that the councils were “likely to succeed on their claim that the withholding of the funds at issue in this case is unconstitutional.”
He added,
“The United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President.”
Simon also wrote that,
“Federal funding for the arts and humanities has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, with Congress continuing to strengthen the statutes governing NEH and provide stable funding generation after generation.”
In a statement, Phoebe Stein, president of the Federation of State Humanities Councils, called the judge’s ruling “excellent” but cautioned that “humanities councils are still operating without their Congressionally appropriated funds, and many have already laid off staff and cancelled vital programs as a result.”
Adam Davis, executive director of Oregon Humanities, said the ruling is
“motivating” and “one step — among many that are needed — in the large, ongoing endeavor to knit our communities and the country closer together.”
In a similar vein, a federal judge in New York ruled in July that the government had broken the law by canceling previously awarded grants for the humanities. It stated that until the matter is tried, the grants ought to be restored.
NPR has yet to receive a response from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
What are the arguments supporting the judge's ruling on the humanities grants' legality?
The judge emphasized that the U.S. Constitution grants exclusive authority over federal spending to Congress, not the President or executive agencies. The sudden termination of grants, previously approved by Congress, unlawfully usurps this power of the purse.
The grants were awarded under statutes that require funds to be made available to state humanities councils and other recipients. The executive branch's unilateral refusal to disburse these congressionally appropriated funds violates these legal mandates.
The judge noted this as an important legislative context underscoring the grants' protected status.