ALA, DOJ Lawyers Are Negotiating a Potential Settlement in IMLS Case
“The parties seek this extension in good faith as they have begun to engage in negotiations regarding a potential settlement,” the joint filing states.
In a joint filing this week, lawyers for the American Library Association and the Trump Administration have moved to extend the filing deadlines in their litigation over the Trump administration’s bid to shutter the agency by executive order, citing settlement talks.
“The parties seek this extension in good faith as they have begun to engage in negotiations regarding a potential settlement,” the joint filing states. “The parties agree that an extension of 60 days is necessary to discuss the terms of such a resolution and obtain the requisite supervisory approval of any such resolution. The extension of time will minimize the burden on the Court’s and the parties’ resources while the parties negotiate.”
The extension is the second in the last six months. Lawyers for the ALA had initially moved for summary judgment on September 5, 2025, and the DOJ had responded on November 25, 2025, with a cross-motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. The court then granted an extension of the briefing, with ALA lawyers previously due to file their response next week, on February 17.
The new schedule will now have the ALA’s joint response due on April 20, after which the DOJ would have until May 4 to file their reply—more than a year after the ALA filed the case on April 7, 2025. Unless, of course, there is a settlement to end the litigation.
News of the settlement talks comes after a federal judge in Rhode Island, in a parallel case brought by 21 states, permanently blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services. That decision is currently being appealed by the DOJ.
In both cases, the Trump administration’s main argument is that the federal courts in question lack jurisdiction to hear the challenges because the cases involve contract claims and employment disputes that, by law, belong in other venues.
In their motion for summary judgment, ALA attorneys insist that the Trump administration's bid to dismantle congressionally-created agencies like the IMLS via executive order are not mere contract or employment disputes, but are a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution—arguments identical to those accepted by Rhode Island judge John J. McConnell in his permanent injunction in the Rhode Island case.
