In a Major Victory, Rhode Island Judge Permanently Blocks Trump's Bid to Shutter the IMLS
In a November 21 summary judgment ruling, judge John J. McConnell held that the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the IMLS and several other federal agencies via executive order was both illegal and unconstitutional.
In a massive victory for libraries, a federal judge in Rhode Island has permanently blocked the Trump Administration's bid to shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
In a November 21 summary judgment decision, judge John J. McConnell ruled in favor of 21 plaintiff states who argued that the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the IMLS and several other federal agencies targeted in a March 14 executive order was unlawful and unconstitutional. In turn, McConnell denied the government's motion for summary judgment, and a motion for the judge to reconsider his prior preliminary injunction in the case.
"By now, the question presented in this case is a familiar one: may the Executive Branch undertake such actions in circumvention of the will of the Legislative Branch? In recent months, this Court—along with other courts across the country—has concluded that it may not. That answer remains the same here." McConnell wrote in his opinion.
With the ruling, the administration is now "permanently enjoined from taking any future actions to implement, give effect to, comply with, or carry out the directives contained in [Trump's executive order]." The injunction applies for all grants and in all states and territories.
First filed on April 4 by 21 states, the lawsuit alleged that Trump’s controversial March 14 executive order (and the subsequent actions taken by administration officials to implement it), likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the Constitution.
Administration lawyers countered that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the states’ case. Basically, DOJ lawyers argued that any issues regarding canceled IMLS grants are contract claims that belong in the Federal Court of Claims, and that any layoffs at the targeted agencies are employment disputes that must be be heard before other “administrative bodies” established by the Congress via Civil Service Reform Act.
Furthermore, DOJ lawyers asserted that the case was not ripe because the actions taken by administration officials to dismantle the agencies were not “final acts” as required by the APA.
But in an unequivocal May 6 opinion, McConnell first those arguments and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's attempts to “dismantle” the IMLS and the other “congressionally sanctioned" agencies. And in his November 21 summary judgment decision, he forcefully doubled down on his findings.
"First, the States’ APA claims aside, the Tucker Act does not prohibit this Court
from reviewing the States’ claim that Defendants acted unconstitutionally," McConnell explained. "Second, to the extent that the APA is implicated, Defendants’ Tucker Act argument fails because the States’ challenge is not, at its essence, a contract claim."
Furthermore, McConnell reiterated that the mass terminations of grants and staff at IMLS and other agencies were not done reasonably, as mandated by the APA’s threshold requirement that precludes “arbitrary and capricious” acts.
But perhaps most importantly, McConnell reiterated that the administration's efforts to unilaterally dismantle the IMLS and other federal agencies by executive action violated the Constitution's "Take Care" and "Separation of Powers" provisions.
"In its earlier decision, the Court specifically found that, in implementing the [the executive order], the Executive was 'usurping Congress’s: (1) power of the purse, by disregarding congressional appropriations; and (2) vested legislative authority to create and abolish federal agencies,'" McConnell wrote. But the President "has no statutory authority to cancel appropriations passed by Congress or abolish federal agencies created by Congress," the judge concluded. "Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants violated the Constitution’s Take Care Clause and the Separation of Powers doctrine."
McConnell's massive decision comes as a federal judge in Washington D.C. this week set forth a schedule to hear a parallel case to save the agency filed by the American Library Association.
Andrew Richard Albanese
It also comes as Congress debates whether to keep the IMLS funded in FY 2026.
Under a Continuing Resolution now in force through January 2026, the IMLS will continue to be funded at FY 2025 levels. And despite the administration's proposal to wind down the agency, legislators in both houses have proposed keeping the agency in their FY 2026 budget at $291.8 million.
That's a $3 million cut to the IMLS over funding levels set in a continuing resolution for FY 2025, but given the administration’s recent budget blueprint that proposed the agency’s permanent elimination, library advocates say it’s a positive sign. Furthermore, both the House and Senate have proposed a very modest increase—about $400,000—for state grants to libraries under the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA).
At press time, the DOJ has not commented on the ruling, although McConnell's preliminary injunction is currently on appeal before the First Circuit, with a hearing currently set for a December 4.
“This isn't just a win for the 21 states who filed the case—it's a win for every library user and every American in every state and territory," said ALA president Sam Helmick, in statement. "As we celebrate this decision, ALA invites everyone to keep using and speaking up for libraries. Your voice makes a difference, and your community leaders need to hear it."
In a statement, EveryLibrary executive director John Chrastka also celebrated the decision.
"This is the outcome we have been hoping for and expecting since the executive order was issued in March," Chrastka told Words & Money. "The statutory obligations of the Institute have always been clear and it is satisfying to see the court affirm the stability and continuance of this critical federal agency."
This is a breaking story, we will add more reaction and details as they come in.
