Judge Schedules Next Steps in the ALA’s IMLS Case

After declining to issue a preliminary injunction, federal judge Richard J. Leon this week set a schedule that likely won’t have the American Library Association's lawsuit to save the Institute of Museum and Library Services ready for oral argument until October, at the earliest. Meanwhile, in a joint status report, lawyers for the DOJ indicated that they would be moving to have the ALA's case dismissed.

With Leon's June 17 order, the ALA is now due to file its motion for summary judgment by August 5; the DOJ is due to file its “combined opposition,” which would include both its summary judgment motion and an anticipated motion to dismiss, by August 26. The ALA would then have until September 9 to reply, and the DOJ’s final reply would be due September 23.

Furthermore, over the objections of ALA lawyers, Leon granted the DOJ an extra two weeks to file an “administrative record” with the court, which is now due by July 15. ALA lawyers had asked for the administrative record to be delivered by June 30, along with a schedule that would have had the case fully briefed for summary judgment by September 1.

The administrative record—which is the records and evidence documenting how IMLS leaders made key decisions to run, or in this case, slash the agency—is expected to be central in deciding the case on the merits, provided of course the ALA’s suit survives the DOJ’s legal challenge over jurisdiction.

Notably, both the ALA suit as well a parallel suit to save the IMLS filed by 21 states in federal court in Rhode Island allege that the Trump administration's cutting of IMLS grants and personnel was done in an “arbitrary and capricious” fashion, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.  

While Leon didn’t get to that question in his June 6 decision to deny injunctive relief in the ALA case, judge John J. McConnell in Rhode Island did, finding in his May 6 decision to issue an injunction that agency officials had not shown evidence that “any analysis was conducted” before they began the mass elimination of programs, grants, and personnel at IMLS.

Leon’s June 17 schedule comes after the parties had proposed two different paths forward in a joint status report filed on June 13.

In the filing, Trump administration lawyers indicated that they would move to have the ALA’s case dismissed, arguing that the court’s “substantive finding" that the plaintiffs lack jurisdiction supported the move. DOJ lawyers also asked the court to pause “administrative record production” while they prepared their motion to dismiss, which they had proposed to file by June 30.

Lawyers for the ALA, however, disputed the DOJ’s characterization of Leon’s June 6 decision as a “substantive finding,” pointing out that the judge held only that the ALA “may not be able to show" that the court has jurisdiction.

Indeed, in a footnote in his decision, Leon expressly reiterated that he was "not ruling that the plaintiffs will be unable to show this Court has jurisdiction," only that "at this early stage," they were "unable to show a substantial likelihood of success." More glaringly, before he declined to issue an injunction Leon had asked the parties for consent to extend his initial temporary restraining order—clearly an indication that, however Leon may now be leaning, the question of jurisdiction was still unresolved.

In the status report, ALA lawyers instead proposed to move to summary judgment on an expedited schedule. Additional briefing for a motion to dismiss would be “highly inefficient” and would only “unnecessarily delay,” the proceedings, ALA lawyers stressed, pointing out that the threshold for surmounting a motion to dismiss is a low legal bar while they have already cleared a significantly higher legal bar by winning a month-long temporary restraining order.

ALA lawyers also told the court they believed the case could likely be decided largely on the administrative record, and urged Leon to move swiftly.

“Prompt resolution of this matter is appropriate given the ongoing injuries Plaintiffs suffer because of Defendants’ actions,” ALA lawyers argued, telling the court that the preliminary injunction now in effect in Rhode Island v. Trump, does not extend to those outside of the 21 plaintiff states in that case.  

Justice Delayed?

The new schedule in the ALA case comes at a time of uncertainty for the IMLS.

After initially finding for the ALA on May 1 and issuing a month-long temporary restraining order, Leon’s June 6 about face, which, as ALA lawyers noted, has left IMLS grantees outside of the 21 plaintiff states in the Rhode Island case unable to access their grant funding.

Furthermore, should the First Circuit grant a pending DOJ motion for a stay in the Rhode Island IMLS case, administration officials would once again be free to act on their plans to gut the agency—which, library advocates fear, they would do quickly, while the wheels of justice are left to slowly grind in the underlying lawsuits.

Meanwhile, beyond the courtroom, the Trump administration has proposed the permanent elimination of the IMLS in its FY 2026 budget proposal.

Against that backdrop, it is expected that administration officials will seek to draw out the current legal proceedings rather than rush to litigate them on the merits. After all, as Words & Money reported last week, without injunctive relief the administration would be free to swiftly dismantle the IMLS, meaning that even if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail in their underlying lawsuits, the damage would almost certainly be done—and potentially irreversible—by the time those decisions are delivered.

Meanwhile, bolstering the ALA’s position, a report released this week by the Government Accountability Office agreed that the Trump Administration is breaking federal law by withholding congressionally approved funds from the IMLS.

Specifically, in a 12-page report issued on June 16, the GAO—an independent, nonpartisan agency that serves as a watchdog for congressional appropriations—determined that the Trump administration’s actions in withholding previously approved IMLS funding violates the 1974 Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Once enacted, an appropriation is a law like any other, and the President must implement it by ensuring that appropriated funds are obligated and expended prudently during their period of availability unless and until Congress enacts another law providing otherwise,” wrote GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez in the report. “The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation.”