In ALA Case, DOJ Continues Its Fight to Dismantle the IMLS

Just days after a federal judge in Rhode Island permanently blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services, DOJ lawyers in another case are doubling down on their arguments to shutter the agency.

In a parallel lawsuit, filed in April by the American Library Association, DOJ lawyers this week dropped a combined motion for dismissal and for summary judgment using the same unsuccessful arguments in Rhode Island: mainly, that the district court lacks jurisdiction because the case involves either contract claims or employment disputes that, by law, belong in other venues.

Leaning heavily on two recent Supreme Court decisions—National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association and Department of Education v. California—DOJ lawyers told Washington D.C-based judge Richard J. Leon that the jurisdictional issues in the ALA case are "no longer close questions," and that the ALA's case should be tossed.

"As to grant terminations, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in California and NIH controls because those claims are committed to the Court of Federal Claims by the Tucker Act. As to personnel decisions, the Civil Service Reform Act requires channeling of claims related to federal employment to the administrative bodies created by that statute," the DOJ's November 27 brief argues. "Together, these two jurisdictional bars entirely preclude Plaintiffs’ case. For these reasons, and the additional reasons explained herein, this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion, grant Defendants’ cross-motion, and enter judgment for Defendants."

Notably, both the California and NIH Supreme Court rulings are not final decisions based on the merits, but are orders staying lower court decisions that had blocked the Trump administration's actions, both of which were delivered off the Supreme Court's so-called emergency docket without the benefit of argument.

The DOJ's filing in the ALA case comes after ALA lawyers on September 5 filed their motion for summary judgment.

In their brief, ALA attorney argued that the Trump administration's actions are not mere contract disputes, but rather a brazen repudiation of Congress's statutory mandates in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and in violation of the "Separation of Powers" and "Take Care" clauses of the Constitution—arguments identical to those accepted last week by Rhode Island judge John J. McConnell in issuing his permanent injunction in a parallel case filed by 21 states.

Unlike the case in Rhode Island, in which McConnell has never wavered, the ALA's legal effort to save the IMLS has been on a winding legal path since it was first filed in April.

On May 1, judge Leon issued a temporary restraining order and delivered a six-page ruling in which he appeared to have little trouble finding for the ALA.

In his first pass, Leon held that "the wholesale termination of grants and services and the mass layoffs appear to violate the clear statutory mandates outlined in the Museum and Library Services Act," and that the administration's actions "to unilaterally shutter IMLS violate, at minimum, the Administrative Procedure Act."

But just days after Leon delivered that decision, a divided panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals issued a stay in a similar case, Widakuswara v. Lake, which accepted the DOJ's jurisdictional arguments. That decision shifted the playing field, and after his month-long temporary restraining order expired, Leon reversed course. In a June 6 opinion and order, the judge denied the ALA's bid for a preliminary injunction, holding that both "the facts and the law" in the case were "in flux."

The parties in the ALA case will now trade reply filings, with the ALA case set to be fully briefed by the end of December. That will likely be followed by a hearing, barring a surprise dismissal, and then what will surely be another high stakes opinion, sometime in early 2026.

Meanwhile, after McConnell's permanent injunction in Rhode Island last week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals this week dismissed a pending appeal of the judge's preliminary injunction, which is now moot. A hearing that had been set for December 4 is canceled, though an appeal of McConnell's permanent injunction is almost certainly coming.