Filed Date: March 6, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the prohibition on federal funding of art programs that promoted “gender ideology” and required all funding applicants to certify their understanding that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.” On March 6, 2025, four nonprofit arts organizations—Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive, and Theatre Communications Group—filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and its acting chair, Mary Anne Carter. The case was assigned to Senior Judge William Smith and Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and cooperating private counsel, the plaintiffs challenged the new NEA requirements and argued they were unconstitutional under the First and the Fifth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn the policy, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”. The order directed all federal agencies, including the NEA, to ensure that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.” It defined “gender ideology” as the “false claim” that gender identity can be separate from biological sex and that there is a spectrum of genders. The executive order required agencies to revise their grant conditions accordingly. Following this directive, the NEA amended its Assurance of Compliance on February 6, 2025, requiring all grant applicants to affirm they would not use federal funding to “promote gender ideology.” This new requirement effectively barred funding for projects that depicted or affirmed transgender and nonbinary identities, even if they otherwise met the statutory criteria of “artistic excellence and artistic merit” under 20 U.S.C. § 954(d)(1).
The plaintiffs had previously received NEA funding and intended to apply for new grants in 2025. They argued the new funding restriction rendered them ineligible for grants solely because their work affirmed transgender and nonbinary identities. The lawsuit asserted that the restriction violated the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint-based discrimination on artistic expression. It further claimed the policy violated the Fifth Amendment on due process grounds, as the term “gender ideology” was unconstitutionally vague. The plaintiffs also contended the NEA’s implementation of the executive order violated the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding the agency’s statutory authority, being arbitrary and capricious, and contradicting constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 6, 2025, and on the same day filed motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction against the implementation of EO 14168, or any other action preventing the defendants from fulfilling their statutory duty to judge grant applicants according to the “artistic excellence and artistic merit” standard. Defendants filed a response in opposition to the preliminary injunction on March 21, arguing the plaintiffs' claims were not justiciable or ripe. Plaintiffs filed a reply on March 25, challenging the defendants' assertion that their claims were not ripe. The court held a hearing on the motion for temporary restraining order on March 27, 2025.
The Court denied the TRO and/or preliminary injunction motion on April 3, 2025. The Court determined that because the defendants rescinded their implementation of the EO for this grant cycle, the plaintiff's claims regarding the certification requirement were moot. Notably, the court still found that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success and irreparable harm. That alone, however, was not enough to persuade the court on the necessity of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction.
Summary Authors
Jillian Snyman (3/12/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69710414/parties/rhode-island-latino-arts-v-national-endowment-for-the-arts/
Cole, David (Rhode Island)
Eidelman, Vera (Rhode Island)
Hauss, Brian (Rhode Island)
Kim, Scarlet (Rhode Island)
Bolan, Kevin (Rhode Island)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69710414/rhode-island-latino-arts-v-national-endowment-for-the-arts/
Last updated April 24, 2025, 3:40 p.m.
State / Territory: Rhode Island
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Transgender Rights)
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 6, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Four nonprofit organizations dedicated to supporting the arts, including transgender and nonbinary artists.
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
National Endowment for the Arts, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+: