More Details Emerge About IMLS Dismantling; Plaintiffs in RHODE ISLAND Lawsuit Seek Permanent Injunction

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 Since that time, employees have been laid off and federal funding has been revoked and reinstated nationwide.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 forward would 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. Trump and The American Library Association v. Sonderling) were filed against the cuts, both of which remain in the federal courts. A full timeline and look at the impact of the IMLS dismantling can be viewed here.

This week, plaintiffs in Rhode Island v. Trump, submitted a request to the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island for a summary judgment in the case. Those plaintiffs, composed of 21 state attorneys general, won a temporary injunction on May 13; they’re now seeking a permanent injunction. Such an injunction would keep the IMLS (as well as the Minority Business Development Agency and Federal Conciliation and Remediation Service), fully staffed and operational–something especially vital right now as the proposed federal budget, which has yet to move through Congress due to their summer recess, completely slashes the agency as of October 1.

Alongside their request for permanent injunction, plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case submitted a 300 page statement of undisputed facts in the case. This document creates the fullest picture of what happened from the the moments before Trump’s Executive Order gutting the institution until now, as well as the state-level library services impacted by the agency’s gutting and grant terminations. Among the facts presented:

• “On Friday, March 14, at 8:57 p.m.—hours before the President issued this executive order—Chief of Staff Katherine Maas emailed IMLS staff to state: “We received word from the White House this evening that [IMLS Acting Director] Cyndee [Landrum]’s term as acting director is over. She is returning to the deputy director position, effective immediately, and we have updated the website to reflect this change. At this time, we have no further word about next steps, but stand ready for whatever comes next.”
• “Migus further advised staff to consider what option was best for them personally, and specifically mentioned that employees could take Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments or Voluntary Early Retirement Authority. Migus told staff that they had a same-day deadline to indicate interest in those options to Human Resources.”
• “On April 1, Dotson informed staff through unofficial channels that only twelve employees would be brought back from administrative leave to staff IMLS. The clear implication of this statement was that all of the remaining employees will be terminated in RIF, possibly within 30 days” [Note: the IMLS had a total of 77 employees].
• “Of the thirty employees who processed or administered grant programs and the five employees who handled the financial aspects of grants prior to March 31, only four were not on administrative leave in April 2025. Only one of the five employees who administering the Grants to States program—the supervisor—was not placed on administrative leave. It would not have been possible for a staff of twelve employees to complete this workload or administer the volume of existing grants and incoming grant applications for the upcoming year.”
• “Without the Office of Research and Evaluation, the Public Library Survey, which is conducted every two years and is essential to understanding the library field, will cease to be issued”
• “As of April 11, 2025, only two individuals were working in the Office of Library Services. Only one of those individuals had experience as a program officer. The other individual, who was at that time serving as the acting deputy director of the Office of Library Services, was an administrative assistant who had no experience administering the agency’s grants or library grant programs.
• “Stacey Aldrich, the Hawai‘i State Librarian, testified that given the uncertainty of the full funding for Fiscal Year 2024 and Fiscal Year 2025, Hawai‘i has not moved forward with the subscriptions for many of its online resources because it does not have the budgetary resources or flexibility to make up for the lost funding. Communities across Hawai‘i will experience the loss of resources that help them stay informed and connected to the rest of the world.”
• “Sara Jones, State Librarian of Washington, testified that loss of federal funding from IMLS will cause significant harm to the Washington State Library. The State Library’s Grants to States federal funding supported thirty-two partially or fully funded Library Development Staff, staff at the Washington Talking Book and Braille Library, and prison and hospital library staff. Jobs supported by federal funding will have to be eliminated if that funding is not restored. Moreover, the State Library will have to significantly cut back—if not entirely eliminate—its eBook, audiobook, research database, and reference offerings. Washington’s nationally recognized institutional library programs for the hospitalized and incarcerated will be endangered, as will programming at the Talking Book and Braille Library. Innovative community projects like the tabletop gaming grant and digital newspaper pilots will cease if those grants are terminated too. Local, tribal, K-12, or community college libraries will not be able to fill this tremendous gap in services.”
• “[Illinois State Library] uses these federal funds to support many of its programs, including: $2.5 million allocated to the Illinois Heartland and Reaching Across Illinois Library Systems (IHLS and RAILS), a program that facilitates the delivery of books and other library materials to support interlibrary loan services; $1.8 million for a subscription to the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) WorldCat Discovery/FirstSearch Services, used by more than 1,000 libraries in Illinois to support cataloging, the interlibrary loan program, and information needs; $526,000 for Project Next Generation, which educates at-risk students and provides access to computers, software, and technologies to students who may not otherwise have access; and $420,000 allocated to the Illinois Department of Corrections for the purchase of library materials and services at 28 state corrections facilities in the state, aimed at reducing recidivism”
• “Additionally, IMLS offers several grant programs for tribal nations, of which California has the most in the nation. No California state money has ever been specifically earmarked for support of tribal libraries or cultural centers. If IMLS funds end, so do these grant opportunities”
• “Benjamin Miller testified that terminating LSTA funding already allocated to Wisconsin and possibly ending future LSTA funding will irreparably harm Wisconsin’s libraries and the communities they serve. In particular, Miller testified that rural libraries and tribal nation libraries dependent on this funding and services from IMLS project will likely be forced to close, as they have limited financial options. Miller testified that potential program cuts in libraries across the state will result in students without summer reading programs or unemployed residents without the resources they rely on to improve job readiness and help find them new employment. Upon information and belief, Miller further testified that without statewide programs like the “WISCAT Interlibrary Loan Platform” and interlibrary loan services, public libraries will struggle to provide access to the materials their residents need for education, small business support, and recreation. Further, and upon information and belief, Miller testified that public library systems will be forced to reduce services such as interlibrary delivery and professional learning opportunities. Libraries are the centers of their communities. The loss of federal funding will force libraries to cut back on programs and services that offer life-changing opportunities to the citizens of Wisconsin.”

You can read the entire list facts relating to the impact of the closure of the IMLS and gutting of grants from the agency in the Summary here.

One of the potential challenges for the Rhode Island case, as well as for the ALA case, is the recent Supreme Court ruling in National Institutes of Health et al. v. American Public Health Association et al. The divided court ruled on two separate matters related to cuts made by the Trump administration. Challenges made toward executive orders that cut competitive grants were likely filed in the wrong court–they should proceed in the Court of Federal Claims, where injunctive relief is much more difficult (if not impossible) to acquire. Meanwhile, challenges about agency cuts and changes not related to grant programs can proceed in District Courts where injunctive relief is possible. While cases in the Court of Federal Claims allow for challenging Trump directly, there isn’t remedy readily available. The Rhode Island case and the ALA case relate to both grant termination–competitive ones, as well as mandatory ones like Grants to States–and agency termination.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the ruling in the National Institutes of Health case an example of Calvinball, pulling from the comic strip “Calvin and Hobbes,” writing “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.” Playing a game of what court can see which case allows the can to be kicked further down the road and allow more potential damage to be done by the Trump administration.

The ALA v. Sonderling case was dealt a court loss in June for reasons similar to those cited above. Judge Leon’s decision in ALA vs. Sonderling came not because he agreed with the defendants and their evidence. It came because he believes the case itself was brought to the wrong court jurisdiction. His decision notes that the case should be brought under the Court of Federal Claims, further muddying the waters about what may or may not happen not only in this case but with the IMLS more broadly.

No date or further action has been taken at the request of the State Attorneys General in Rhode Island, but we’ll hopefully see more action soon.

The US House of Representatives returns to chambers September 2, as does the Senate. While neither the House Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies nor the broader Appropriations Committee met to markup the Trump Fiscal Year 2026 budget prior to the early recess–called because of pressure related to the demands to release the Epstein Files–the Senate Appropriations Committee reversed the proposed IMLS cuts prior to their adjourning. There is not yet a calendar schedule for the listed markup meetings in the House, though as noted previously, there is no better time than now to reach out to members of each committee to support funding the IMLS. This will provide you talking points in your communication with the appropriate Congress people.

A full timeline of the IMLS being dismantled, as well as readings about the impact of such cuts, is available here.