On March 14th, 2025, President Trump enacted Executive Order (EO) 14238, calling for the “reduction in the elements of the Federal bureaucracy the President deemed unnecessary.” In this order, the president called for the elimination of all “non-statutory funding” (funding that is not required by law) for seven organizations, and called for the Office of Management and Budget to reject subsequent budget proposals that didn’t abide by these guidelines. These organizations ranged from providing funds dedicated to supporting US cultural heritage, such as the United States Agency for Global Media, to providing essential relief services, such as the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.
In particular, one specific organization, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), was especially hard hit by the administration’s directives. The IMLS is responsible for supporting libraries, archives, and museums in all 50 states and U.S. territories, awarding more than $266 million in grants and funding opportunities last year, as well as conducting research and developing policy. In efforts to comply with EO 14238, the director of the IMLS drastically reduced operations – placing 85% of its staff on administrative leave, curtailing hundreds of grants and grant applications, and terminating statutorily mandated grant awards to several States.
Decreased funding for libraries across the nation led to 21 states’ attorneys general filing suit against the administration’s executive order in a district court in Rhode Island.. On May 13th, Honorable Judge John J. McConnell ruled a halt to EO 14238 and its efforts to eliminate the IMLS, the Minority Business and Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). Regarding the IMLS, Judge McConnell ruled to reinstate the staff placed on administrative leave and resume the paused grants. In his decision, Judge McConnell stated that the defendants’ actions were unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Take Care Clause, and the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.
The Administrative Procedure Act is the key doctrine behind administrative law, establishing how federal administrative agencies create rules and adjudicate administrative litigation. By saying the administration violated the APA, the ruling stated that Congress has budgetary discretion over what funds are appropriated to the IMLS and other federal agencies listed within EO 14238. The Take Care Clause, as enshrined in Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” In practice, this duty draws on five types of executive power: powers granted directly by Article II, powers Congress explicitly gives to the President, powers Congress assigns to executive agencies and department heads, authority tied to enforcing federal criminal laws, and the performance of routine “ministerial” duties, where executive officers exercise only limited discretion.
The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, but the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston reaffirmed the district court ruling in Rhode Island, finding no evidence of irreparable harm in the lower court’s ruling. While this ruling is a victory for the future of the IMLS, it comes with caveats. In similar cases this year, when lower courts rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle federal agencies, the White House appealed to the Supreme Court and often won temporary stays while the cases played out. While it is unclear whether this will play out in the case of the Rhode Island ruling, it cannot be ruled out.
Even more important, the lawsuit could be rendered moot if Congress ultimately adopts Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget, which calls for the complete elimination of IMLS funding. For now, both the House and Senate have included funding for the agency in their FY2026 budget plans, but the final outcome depends on budget negotiations ahead of the September 30 deadline. However, in media res, this ruling can be seen as a victory for those who depend on the IMLS and its essential services, seemingly turning the page on library closures for now.
