Photo credit: www.publishersweekly.com
As the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) faces a significant reduction in staff set for May 4, the urgency surrounding the federal agency’s future has escalated. With impending staff layoffs, two lawsuits contesting a White House executive order that threatens to curtail IMLS along with other agencies advanced last week.
During a motion hearing on April 18 in the District Court of Rhode Island, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. addressed the case Rhode Island v. Trump. This lawsuit, initiated by the attorneys general from 21 states, aims to safeguard IMLS, the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) from the impacts of the executive order. The objective is to restore funding and ongoing grant approvals that are now at risk.
Rhode Island’s solicitor general, Katherine Sadeck, articulated the plaintiffs’ request, seeking an injunction against the agency closures and the application of the executive order. She stressed, “We are asking your honor to completely enjoin the executive order and the closure decision,” indicating that this would still permit individualized employment decisions regarding the agency staff.
Sadeck’s colleague, Natalya Buckler, pointed out that the executive order’s repercussions are resulting in significant operational failures. Currently, IMLS is down to just 12 employees, while all but five of MBDA’s staff of 49 are on administrative leave and have been left unable to fulfill their statutory obligations. FMCS, which plays a critical role in mediating labor disputes, has dwindled its workforce from 207 to approximately 15, potentially jeopardizing services essential for various public sectors, including transportation and healthcare.
Buckler highlighted the broader implications of these cuts, stating, “What we’re really challenging is the administration’s concerted effort to shut down avenues of education and dialogue.” She warned that the threats to libraries and small businesses fundamentally undermine democratic principles.
What Constitutes Irreparable Harm?
During the hearing, Judge McConnell noted the federal government’s position that economic damage does not equal irreparable harm, as successful plaintiffs could seek monetary recovery post-factum. He inquired why this case should warrant injunctive relief if financial compensation is possible.
Buckler countered, asserting that the harm alleged extends beyond mere economic factors. The states argue that they cannot be adequately compensated for the tangible losses resulting from the agencies’ diminishment, emphasizing that they are experiencing definite consequences that will persist if the executive order is permitted to remain in effect.
One example Buckler offered was the closure of the Maine State Library (MSL), which has been affected by the loss of IMLS funding. She warned, “The longer that IMLS is allowed to exist in the defunded state…the more difficult it will be to put the pieces back together.” Responding to the defense’s suggestion that MSL could seek alternative funding, Buckler referenced documentation to challenge that assertion.
Sadeck reiterated the urgency of the situation. “If there’s a Maine resident who wants to go to their library today, they can’t,” she remarked, emphasizing that the damage caused cannot be reversed at a future date, nor can public resource services be restored retroactively. She argued that the closures violate both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.
The defense, represented by Abigail Stout from the U.S. Department of Justice, described claims of irreparable harm as speculative. Stout illustrated that MSL’s predicament directly relates to funds scarcity and suggested that reduced staff at FMCS would merely result in increased costs rather than a lack of mediation services.
Judge McConnell pressed Stout regarding the lack of a legislative mandate supporting the drastic changes imposed by the executive order, noting, “One option that our Constitution does not afford him…is to unilaterally destroy the agencies that Congress established.”
Stout responded by characterizing the plaintiffs’ concerns as exaggerated, maintaining that the executive order did not outright abolish the agencies but aimed to downsize them according to their legal frameworks.
Both Buckler and Sadeck contended that the plaintiffs had submitted substantial evidence to the court, unlike the defense, which lacked any rebuttal. McConnell voiced his frustration with the disparity in evidence presented, acknowledging the difficulties it posed for the court’s deliberations.
John Chrastka, executive director of EveryLibrary, commented on the administration’s claims regarding standing as misleading, asserting that the court’s swiftness in addressing the lawsuits was necessary. “We think the case has merit and hope the judge schedules a trial or issues a judgment quickly,” he said.
ALA’s Case in D.C. District Court
Concurrently, after the Rhode Island lawsuit hearing, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia scheduled a motion hearing for April 30 regarding another case, American Library Association v. Sonderling. This lawsuit, involving the ALA and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), seeks a preliminary injunction against the proposed dismantling of IMLS and the cessation or reallocation of awarded grants. This development offers hope for a timely resolution before the anticipated staff reductions take effect.
Source
www.publishersweekly.com