After a federal judge’s decision in Rhode Island v. Trump directed the federal government to reverse course on a presidential executive order targeting the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and two more federal agencies, defendants have assured the court that they are “working diligently to implement all provisions” of the preliminary injunction. They also have asked for a stay pending their appeal of the decision and supplied three affidavits, one from a leader in each agency, attesting to the difficulty of reinstating the workforce and previously awarded grants.

Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the Rhode Island district court ordered the preliminary injunction on May 13, with instructions to file a status report in seven days. The defendants wrote back about progress in reinstating staff and regular functions at IMLS, the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).

The Rhode Island lawsuit was filed by 21 states’ attorneys general, and all statutory Grants to States—including grants to California, Connecticut, and Washington that had been announced as terminated—were fully reinstated May 5, prior to the preliminary injunction. “The final FY25 allotments will be paid once IMLS receives its apportionment from the Office of Management and Budget,” the defendants promised the court. In regard to IMLS’s competitive and non-statutory grant programs, they wrote, “IMLS is diligently working toward reinstating 755 grants in the Plaintiff States. In addition, once the contracting officer—who was previously on administrative leave—returns to work on May 22, IMLS will begin the notifications and negotiations required to reinstate eight terminated contracts across six contractors in Plaintiff States.”

At the agency, the defendants reported, a planned reduction in force (RIF) has been suspended and approximately 57 employees who were involuntarily terminated or placed on administrative leave have been notified that they may come back on a “staggered return” schedule in the coming weeks, joining the remaining office staff numbering about a dozen. The American Federation of Government Employees is working with IMLS union employees to negotiate the terms of this return to work.

In addition, the defendants wrote, “a pre- planned move to new office space” at the Department of Labor, reportedly designed for about a dozen workers rather than IMLS’s more than 70 regular employees, “has been put on hold, and IMLS will notify the General Services Administration that it will stay in its current space during the pendency of the injunction.”

The American Library Association cheered the return of staff and the reinstatement of some funding—including grants of its own—in an announcement on May 21. “We are encouraged that the courts acknowledge the irreparable harm that shuttering IMLS would do to libraries," wrote ALA president Cindy Hohl, noting that the resumption of grants for library services is important nationwide, and "particularly urgent in small, rural, and Tribal communities, where federal funding is crucial to their survival."

“These developments are critical first steps in our shared goal to renew and amplify the need for IMLS after the administration’s abrupt and illegal actions eliminate it," Hohl continued. "Even as we celebrate this progress, we must remember that these wins are temporary and only as good as the extent to which they are upheld throughout the appeals process until the judge issues a ruling on the case based on its merits. We are cautiously optimistic, but library advocates will not rest until libraries in every state receive the funding promised and IMLS is back in full force to meet the information needs of all Americans."

Funding for IMLS, its workforce, and its grant programming is not included in the administration’s FY26 budget proposal. IMLS Grants to States and competitive grant programs determine the fate of small and rural libraries and the occupations of those who serve communities, conduct research, and pursue professional paths in library and information sciences.

Administrative expenses

While making efforts to comply with the order, the defendants requested a stay pending their appeal of judge McConnell’s decision on May 19. They argue that “the relief awarded in this case is overbroad” and that the court “imposed a sweeping order that is not grounded in statutory requirements.”

According to the defendants, the agencies in their now-diminished form should have discretion over personnel decisions and grant agreements, and “the injunction prevents the Agency Defendants from ensuring taxpayer money is appropriately stewarded.” They again question “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs and point to their own “unrecoverable administrative expenses” likely to be incurred when reinstating employees and grants.

These contentions echo the language in the executive order that the non-statutory elements of the agencies should be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law” and the statutory components and personnel should be reduced to their base “minimum” legal limit. Yet an executive order is not a law or a legal document, and the U.S. Constitution decrees that the legislative branch controls appropriations to these agencies.

At the same time, the defendants added three declarations to the docket, one each from the three agencies named in the lawsuit. One affidavit came from acting IMLS director Keith Sonderling, who also serves as the undersecretary of MBDA and as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Labor; one from Kelly Mitchell, who apparently has been serving as the deputy chief of staff of MBDA since March 24; and the other from Gregory Goldstein, longtime acting director of FMCS, who was reappointed to that post in January.

In his affidavit on the IMLS, Sonderling expressed his concern that the agency will be “overstaffed” if all employees are brought back, “leading to staffing inefficiencies and additional costs.” He noted that plans to move the agency “to a more compact footprint of leased space” would need to be reversed and contractual agreements restored. He contended that due to unrecoverable expenses, “IMLS will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not stayed.”

Sonderling added that employees on leave “were actively involved in assisting the plaintiffs in related litigation in the District of Columbia,” referring to the American Library Association’s lawsuit in progress, which includes pseudonymous sworn declarations on the internal workings of IMLS. He also accused employees of “providing information to the press, and publicly disparaging those employees who remained. Returning them to the office promises to present, at best, an awkward situation and, at worst, a toxic work environment,” he wrote. He also argued that, “given their active support of the plaintiffs”—who have fought to reinstate workers and awarded grant funding—the employees may not “be fully prepared to support the administration’s priorities for IMLS’s grant programs.”

Were it not for a temporary restraining order in ALA v. Sonderling and the preliminary injunction in Rhode Island v. Trump, all but the roughly dozen employees still in the office would have lost their jobs on a scheduled May 4 RIF date. In the ALA v. Sonderling case, in which plaintiffs were granted a narrow temporary restraining order while awaiting a decision on a preliminary injunction, judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia wrote that “plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable injury. Plaintiffs point to myriad harms—supported by declarations—to ALA, AFSCME, and their members.”

On May 20, Judge McConnell of Rhode Island ordered plaintiffs to respond to the motion to stay pending appeal, on or before May 27. Defendants may reply on or before May 30.

This story has been updated with new information.