Humanities councils win freeze on Trump grant terminations

PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — In April, the Trump administration terminated nearly all grants awarded to local humanities councils across the country — an action a federal judge on Wednesday declared unlawful.

“The chaos caused by defendants’ conduct harms plaintiffs’ reputations,” U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote in the 81-page order. In addition, the abrupt revocation of grants caused humanities agencies to cancel programs in rural communities and lay off staff — all of which are harms that would continue unless the court entered a preliminary injunction, Simon found.

Anna Sortun, attorney with Tonkon Torp representing the plaintiffs the Oregon Council for the Humanities and the Federation of State Humanities Councils, said she was grateful to the court for “being prepared and acting quickly.”

The plaintiffs — who sued the Department of Governmental Efficiency, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Council on the Humanities and related administrators —  appeared before Simon on Monday, asking the court to set aside the termination and rescission notices that councils received in April and June and enjoin the federal government from altering the status quo.

Simon largely agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument, opening his opinion with a passage from Willem Drees’ book “What Are the Humanities For?” which emphasizes the importance of the humanities. He next quoted Representative William D. Ford of Michigan’s comments made in 1969, when a bill to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities was before Congress: “The arts and the humanities are not frills, but are crucial to our nation’s survival and continued freedom,” Ford said at the time.

“Representative Ford’s words still resonate today,” Simon wrote. “Federal funding for the arts and humanities has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, with Congress continuing to strengthen the statutes governing [National Endowment for the Humanities] and provide stable funding generation after generation.”

The plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of violating the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Administrative Procedure Act and the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law passed in an effort to prevent reserving funds to further administration policies at the expense of those decided by Congress.

Simon agreed with the separation of powers argument.

“The executive branch is not at liberty to rewrite a statute or unilaterally refuse to spend appropriated funds as directed,” Simon wrote.

As for the Impoundment Control Act, the federal judge was less convinced, as the act provides that “only the comptroller general may bring suit directly to enforce” the act.

However, Simon found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act claims against some of the defendants.

The government had argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Tucker Act, which requires any claims for damages based on contracts with the federal government to go through the Court of Federal Claims, but Simon rejected the notion that the plaintiff’s claims were merely contractual in nature.

“Plaintiffs’ claims are not premised on the specific terms of any councils’ grant agreements, and the court need not consider the grant terms to decide plaintiffs’ APA claims,” Simon wrote.

Simon ordered the government not to implement the grant terminations it sent to the plaintiffs nor to issue any further grant terminations. He also ordered the government not to reallocate the funding initially committed to plaintiffs.

Adam Davis, executive director of Oregon Humanities, celebrated the court’s swift decision in favor of the humanities councils.

“Today’s news from the court is heartening and motivating,” Davis said. “This is one step — among many that are needed — in the large, ongoing endeavor to knit our communities and the country closer together.”

Representatives for the government did not respond to requests for comment by press time.