EveryLibrary Statement on the Federal Court’s Preliminary Injunction Protecting IMLS and Independent Cultural Agencies
On May 6, 2025, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a preliminary injunction in the case of State of Rhode Island et al. v. Trump et al., halting the implementation of Executive Order 14238 as it pertains to the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).
EveryLibrary strongly supports this ruling, which underscores the statutory work of these independent federal agencies and stops the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to dismantle them.
Judge McConnell found that Executive Order 14238 violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the constitutional separation of powers, and the "Take Care Clause" by directing agencies to eliminate functions mandated by Congress without legal justification or authority. The court determined there is a high likelihood that the plaintiffs (the 21 state Attorneys General) will succeed on the merits of their case. The injunction was granted due to the irreparable harm that was already occurring; IMLS had placed nearly all its staff on administrative leave, terminated numerous grants, and disabled core statutory functions such as research and state-level grant administration. Similarly, FMCS and MBDA experienced structural dismantling despite receiving full appropriations from Congress.
A preliminary injunction is a court order designed to maintain the status quo and prevent further harm while a case proceeds to a full trial. A preliminary injunction is issued when a judge believes that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed at a trial. A temporary restraining order (TRO) is typically a short-term emergency measure issued by a court to prevent additional actions by the defendant while a trial is being sought. According to the Associated Press, this preliminary injunction is one of 72 lawsuits that have fully or partially blocked executive actions by the Administration.
The 21-state AGs case named President Trump and challenged the executive order as an unconstitutional overreach. By naming the president, the AGs directly raised claims under the Take Care Clause and separation of powers, resulting in a broader and arguably stronger case that challenges the legality of dismantling these agencies through executive orders. This preliminary injunction in Rhode Island restores operational continuity for IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS and prevents further grant cancellations, staff terminations, and program disruptions. However, the underlying case must still proceed to trial, and a permanent injunction will be necessary to prevent these closures from being attempted again.
Barring any unusual judicial intervention, both the Rhode Island preliminary injunction lawsuit and the ALA/AFSCME temporary restraining order lawsuits could proceed independently in their respective courts. There is no automatic mechanism to consolidate these parallel cases filed in different districts, and precedent from previous legal challenges to Trump-era executive orders suggests that courts generally allow such cases to develop in parallel unless one ruling renders another moot or higher courts step in to resolve conflicts. Each case may produce distinct rulings or remedies, and both remain paths for protecting federal agencies from executive overreach.
Both cases seek to restore these agencies only through the end of the current fiscal year (FY2025), based on Congress's lawful appropriations that have already been enacted. They are focused on honoring and implementing the FY2025 budget, not securing future funding. It is important to emphasize that neither lawsuit can compel Congress to fund IMLS or any other federal cultural agency in future fiscal years. Future funding for IMLS is a political decision by Congress.
Looking ahead, President Trump’s FY2026 “skinny budget” proposal, which was released last week, once again calls to eliminate IMLS entirely (along with the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)). This proposal to zero-fund IMLS aligns with all four of his previous budget proposals during his first term in office. While the courts may prevent executive overreach in FY2025, they cannot ensure next year’s funding. Only Congress has that authority.
EveryLibrary continues to urge our network of library stakeholders to contact Congress to ask for full and continuing appropriations for IMLS, NEA, and NEH in the FY2026 budget. Visit fundimls.org to take action now. The stakes are high for communities across the country. If federal funding for IMLS and other cultural agencies is to continue in FY2026 and beyond, the responsibility lies with us.