U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell ruled in favor of 21 state attorneys general suing Donald Trump over the dismantling of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and several other small federal agencies. This permanent injunction means that the Trump administration cannot do further harm to the IMLS.
McConnell wrote in the first paragraph of his decision:
By now, the question presented in this case is a familiar one: may the Executive Branch undertake such actions in circumvention of the will of the Legislative Branch? In recent months, this Court—along with other courts across the country—has concluded that it may not. That answer remains the same here.
On March 14, the Trump administration announced via an Executive Order that the only federal agency dedicated to public libraries and museums, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) would be dismantled. Since that time, employees have been laid off and federal funding has been revoked and reinstated nationwide. The Trump-appointed acting director of the agency, Keith Sonderling, made clear that the purpose of the agency going forwardwould be state propaganda.
The ripples of these federal decisions have made their way to the state level, with state libraries laying off employees and cuts to public library services at the local level impacted. Two lawsuits (Rhode Island v. TrumpandThe American Library Association v. Sonderling) were filed against the cuts, both of which remain in the federal courts. Afull timeline and look at the impact of the IMLS dismantlingcan be viewed here.
Literary Activism
News you can use plus tips and tools for the fight against censorship and other bookish activism!
In making his decision, the judge pointed to the lack of standing the administration made related to the Tucker Act, as well as failure of the administration to act reasonably when terminating grants and IMLS staff. The judge also emphasized that the administration’s decision to dismantle the IMLS was unconstitutional, violating both the “Take Care” and “Separation of Powers” clauses.
McConnell’s decision also pointed to the evidence submitted by the 21 states as proof that the dismantling of the IMLS wasn’t immaterial or imagined:
The Court finds Defendants’ argument unavailing, as the record paints a markedly different picture. For instance, consider the public libraries in New Mexico, New Jersey, Maine, and Oregon that would have to close branches, implement hiring freezes, and/or cease providing services that aim to foster literacy and support learning among its patrons were IMLS to be dismantled. ECF No. 75 at 43-46; ECF No. 92 at 25-26. Or consider the State universities in Hawai‘i, Maryland, and Arizona that would be forced to eliminate their student programming, default on their contracts, and/or terminate their employees absent continued funding from MBDA.22 ECF No. 92 at 24-25. Next, consider the State entities in Rhode Island, Illinois, and Minnesota that face the very real prospect of work stoppage and negotiation impasses should their labor disputes go unresolved without the critical support of FMCS mediators. ECF No. 92 at 26-27. And finally, consider the loss that Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin would suffer without the research-based and community-specific expert assistance that each State’s agencies have continuously relied on in their efforts to support unhoused individuals.ECF No. 75 at 53-55. All this to say: the injuries alleged are to the States themselves and are far more than merely economic or speculative.
We have already seen that services like Interlibrary Loan (ILL) have been directly affected by the loss of IMLS funds. South Dakota shut down ILL services early on the IMLS dismantling, while Iowa saw their courier service slashed from twice a week ro once. Florida lost ILL services statewide on October 1.
The decision in this case applies to grants in all states in the US, not just those whose states brought the case to court. That means the grants available via the IMLS will continue and they will be available to all 50 states. Funding cannot be arbitrarily halted. We saw this happen as three states had their grants canceled–California, Connecticut, and Washington–over the inclusion of the word “equity” in their application.
The administration is also barred from taking further action in dismantling the agency.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and a clear rejection of executive overreach. Congress created the Institute of Museum and Library Services to serve the American people, and no president can erase that mandate by fiat. We are grateful to the 21 plaintiff states who stood up in this case and defended the statutory rights of libraries, museums, and their communities,” said John Chratska, Executive Director of EveryLibrary. “Their courage has not only protected IMLS but also the entire federal framework for access to information, learning, and culture. As Congress resumes work on the FY2026 appropriations bills, we urge lawmakers to fully fund IMLS, especially the Grants to States program, and reaffirm the agency’s role as an essential partner to every library in the nation.”
While this is a major win and points again to the ways and means this regime has purposefully targeted public goods, there are several things to keep in mine. This case will likely be appealed, and that appeal will likely be on the grounds of the judge’s interpretation of the Tucker Act. That’s been one of the key arguments that the administration has used in its cases over the last several months. McConnell’s preliminary injunction was already appealed and oral arguments are set to be heard by the First Circuit Court of Appeal on December 4. Where and how the permanent injunction will impact the lower court’s hearing remains to be seen.
This victory also does not account for what the funding for IMLS funding will look like in Fiscal Year 2026. Trump initially sunset the agency in his proposed budget, but both the House and the Senate included funding for the agency in their budget revisions. While there is a modest cut to an already-modest budget for the IMLS, the allocation of the proposed $291.8 million puts slightly more money into state grants to libraries. Because the IMLS is subject to the Continuing Resolution operating through January, it will continue to be funded at 2025 levels for the time being.
We also know that the administration has funneled money budgeted for the IMLS in 2025 away from the agency. At least $14,000,000 was diverted away from the agency’s Leadership Grants into a propaganda project tied an America 250 celebration. As the budget can continues to be kicked down the road, advocates will need to continue being vigilant not only about the administration’s need to follow court orders but also will need to be conscious of where every penny allocated to the department is moving. It could very well be that the budget to keep the IMLS alive may pass, but whether or not Trump allows that allocation to be spent remains a question.
“This victory belongs to all of us, and we build the future of our libraries together,” said Sam Helmick, American Library Association President, in a statement. “As we celebrate this decision, ALA invites everyone to keep using and speaking up for libraries. Your voice makes a difference, and your community leaders need to hear it.”
Celebrate this win, as it’s been hard-earned and it will likely have an impact on other court cases related to the government’s systematic destruction of agencies and departments. Many who were engaged in the Department of Government Efficiency, the group who ransacked the government on orders from Elon Musk, are now worried they may face consequences for their actions earlier this year.
There’s also news on the second lawsuit brought against the administration in its IMLS takeover. In ALA vs. Sonderling, lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants have filed a proposed schedule for that trial. Movement will be quick here, in anticipation of seeking a decision before the end of 2025.
It is not time to take a break, though. The IMLS still needs folks to support its efforts. Continue writing your federal representatives in favor of fully funding the agency–and ask them to ensure that the money allocated to the IMLS is funding projects within the IMLS’s purview, not those under the president’s or his IMLS leader appointee, Keith Sonderling. Continue, too, to take the time and effort to contact your state-level representatives in support of public libraries in your own state. Write to your own local library and local public schools to highlight the work being done by librarians in those facilities. Each of these actions makes a difference, reminding those who hold the purse strings that these institutions of democracy are important, are valuable, and are worthy of ongoing support. Utilize the resources available in this document to support your statements, and remind legislators the tremendous value libraries have in their communities–and to the greater population.
