Supreme Court Decision Could Spell Trouble for the IMLS

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit prepares to decide whether a federal judge’s order blocking the dismantling of the Institute for Museum and Library Services should be paused pending the appeal process, a Supreme Court decision in a similar case involving the Department of Education is ramping up the pressure.

In McMahon v. New York, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority on July 14 stayed a lower court injunction blocking the administration's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, without explanation, via the court’s so-called emergency or "shadow" docket. That decision, observers note, paves the way for the Trump Administration to resume its plan to destroy the agency—including the firing of nearly 1,400 DOE staff—even though the underlying case remains undecided on the merits.

In a July 16 filing, DOJ lawyers said the same fate should apply to the IMLS.

“In sum, the Supreme Court’s stay decision in McMahon confirms that a stay should be granted here,” DOJ lawyers told the First Circuit in a notice of supplemental authority, arguing that Judge John J. McConnell's May 13 preliminary injunction "causes significant harm to the government by interfering with its legitimate administrative responsibilities vis-à-vis the federal workforce."

After two significant legal victories in early May—including the case in Rhode Island, and a parallel case top save the IMLS filed by the ALA in federal court in Washington D.C.—library advocates were feeling better about their chances of saving the IMLS from Trump's March 14 executive order. But the fate of the agency is once again looking uncertain.

In June, after the D.C. Court of Appeals blocked an injunction in a similar case involving the United States Agency for Global Media, Judge Richard Leon reversed course and denied the ALA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. And should the First Circuit now decide to stay Judge John J. McConnell’s injunction in the Rhode Island case—an outcome that certainly seems possible given the Supreme Court’s decision in McMahon—administration officials would once again be free to act on their plans to gut the IMLS.

After a round of briefs, a June 18 order from the First Circuit set the deadline for the DOJ’s final appeal brief to be filed on July 28, with the states' response due 30 days later and the DOJ’s reply due 21 days after that. Oral argument will then follow.

Observers note that if McConnell’s injunction is stayed by the First Circuit, the IMLS could be swiftly dismantled. And even if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail in the underlying litigation, by the time a decision is delivered the damage would almost certainly be done—and most likely irreversible.

It’s a point that justice Sonia Sotomayor made in a stinging dissent from the Supreme Court’s July 14 decision in McMahon.

“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote. “Rather than maintain the status quo, however, this Court now intervenes, lifting the injunction and permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department. That decision is indefensible. It hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out.”

Meanwhile, the IMLS is also fighting for its life in Congress. In its recent budget proposal, the Trump administration has once again proposed the permanent elimination of the IMLS.