In About Face, Judge Denies ALA's Bid to Block IMLS Destruction

After a month-long temporary restraining order, a federal judge in Washington D.C. has sharply reversed course and denied without prejudice the American Library Association’s motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the IMLS.

In a June 6 opinion and order, judge Richard J. Leon noted that both “the facts and the law” in the case are in flux and held that the ALA could therefore not make a showing that it was likely to prevail on the merits.

“Specifically, the Supreme Court and some judges on our Circuit Court have, in the last few weeks, indicated that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants belong not in district court but in the Court of Federal Claims,” Leon wrote. “These cases are still pending, but they create a substantial question as to whether plaintiffs' case properly belongs in the Court of Federal Claims. I therefore must deny the motion for a preliminary injunction.”

The decision comes after Leon on May 1 delivered a six-page ruling in which he appeared to have little trouble finding for the ALA.

"The wholesale termination of grants and services and the mass layoffs appear to violate the clear statutory mandates outlined in the MLSA. Moreover, defendant's conduct contravenes Congress's appropriation of almost $300 million to IMLS. Plaintiffs are therefore likely to succeed in showing that defendants actions to unilaterally shutter IMLS violate, at minimum, the Administrative Procedure Act," Leon had initially found.

Furthermore, Leon had initially dispatched with the government's defense brief with a single footnote: "At the outset, the court finds that plaintiffs will very likely be able to establish they they have standing, that this case is ripe, and this court has jurisdiction," Leon wrote.

But just days after Leon delivered that decision and issued a temporary restraining order, Trump Administration lawyers filed a motion for reconsideration, citing a May 3 appeals court ruling in Widakuswara v. Lake, an action DOJ lawyers called "strikingly similar" to the IMLS case now before Leon.

In Widakuswara, a coalition of Voice of America journalists and several grantees had won an injunction blocking the Trump administration’s dismantling of the United States Agency for Global Media, which, like the IMLS, was also part of the administration's March 14 executive order.

But in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. ordered a stay of the injunction, with judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao—both Trump appointees—concluding that the government was in fact likely to prevail in the case, based on the very same standing and venue arguments initially rejected by Leon.

While the appeal in Widakuswara has since taken a few more twists—including a partial rehearing en banc pending before the full appeals court—the appeal remains undecided. But the uncertainty was enough for Leon to reconsider his initial finding.

“The Court finds that plaintiffs may not be able to show that this Court has jurisdiction because the Tucker Act ‘confer[s] exclusive jurisdiction over breach of contract claims against the United States seeking more than $10,000 in damages on the Court of Federal Claims," Leon concluded.

While noting that lawyers for the ALA in their pleadings have rejected the idea that the case is a contract dispute, Leon was unconvinced.

“In the final analysis, the court finds that the relief sought is largely contractual,” Leon held. "I have concluded that the Tucker Act may indeed require that plaintiffs bring their case in the court of federal claims."

For now, the litigation continues, and by denying the ALA’s motion without prejudice the ALA can move for a preliminary injunction again should circumstances change. However, that may be awhile. In a filing this week, the parties in the Widakuswara case, for example, have proposed a briefing schedule that would not have the en banc appeal fully briefed and ready to be argued until August.

Leon’s about face comes as a federal judge in Rhode Island this week doubled down on his decision to issue a preliminary injunction in a parallel case seeking to block the dismantling of the IMLS, denying the Trump administration a stay pending their appeal.

Judge John G. McConnell on May 6 found in favor of 21 plaintiff states alleging that Trump's March 14 executive order to dismantle the IMLS and several other agencies was illegal, and a issued a subsequent May 13 preliminary injunction that ordered IMLS employees back to work and the fulfillment of previously awarded grants in the plaintiff states.

Notably, in his decision to issue an injunction, McConnell expressly held that the plaintiff states' challenges are based on “alleged statutory and constitutional violations," and therefore not subject to the “exclusive jurisdiction" of the Federal Court of Claims. McConnell also found that the mass terminations of grants and staff at IMLS and other agencies were not done reasonably, meeting the APA’s threshold precluding “arbitrary and capricious” acts.

In his June 5 decision to deny the Trump administration's bid for a stay, McConnell, reaffirmed his earlier findings, reiterating his conclusions that agency officials were “usurping (1) Congress's power of the purse by disregarding the congressional appropriations and (2) vested legislative authority to create and abolish federal agencies.”

For now, McConnell's ruling stands as a partial safety net for some IMLS employees and some grantees. McConnell's injunction, however, does not provide relief to those outside of the 21 plaintiff states.

In a May 20 status report, IMLS leaders said it had begun a staggered return to work for agency employees in light of McConnell’s order, and was "diligently working toward reinstating 755 grants in the Plaintiff States" and "eight terminated contracts across six contractors in Plaintiff States."

In a statement, ALA reps said the decision in the ALA case means that grantees in the states not covered by McConnell's injunction will not have access to their IMLS funding while the case progresses through the courts.

“ALA is disappointed that the court did not grant our motion for a preliminary injunction," ALA President Cindy Hohl said in a statement. "The extent to which some libraries have already cancelled services and programming—and even lost staff in some cases—is evidence of the importance of IMLS. ALA will not rest until libraries in every state receive the funding promised and IMLS is back in full force to meet the information needs of all Americans.”  

This is a developing story and will be updated…