With most of the employees of the Institute of Museum and Library Services facing a May 4 reduction in force, time is of the essence for the future of the federal agency and its programs. Given the looming deadline, two pending lawsuits that oppose a White House executive order that hobbles IMLS moved forward last week.

In the District Court of Rhode Island, judge John J. McConnell Jr. held a motion hearing April 18 on Rhode Island v. Trump, an effort to preserve IMLS, the Minority Business and Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). The suit, filed by 21 states' attorneys general, intends to restore the embattled agencies and avert threats to awarded grants.

Speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs, Rhode Island solicitor general and assistant attorney general Katherine Sadeck told McConnell, “The relief that we’re seeking is to enjoin the closure decisions and to enjoin these three agencies’ application and implementation of the executive order.”

When McConnell asked whether the plaintiffs were asking the court to reorder the agencies to rehire their staff, Sadeck responded that reductions in force are “in many cases expressly tied to the closure and the executive order. We are asking your honor to completely enjoin the executive order and the closure decision,” which would still allow the agencies “to go back and make more individualized employment decisions.”

The “plaintiff states are seeking to preserve the status quo that has been in place for decades,” Rhode Island assistant attorney general Natalya Buckler added.

Buckler explained that because of the EO, statutory functions of the agencies are going unfulfilled. Only 12 people remain in the office at IMLS, and grantees are learning that their discretionary grants have been terminated. MBDA, an agency that mentors women- and minority-owned businesses, has placed all but five of its 49 staffers on administrative leave, ceased all statutory and non-statutory functions, and cancelled grants. FMCS, a neutral party in resolving labor disputes, has reduced its staff from 207 to about 15, meaning that public transit, public safety, hospitals and medical facilities, and schools could be hamstrung by unresolved labor disputes.

“What we’re really challenging is the administration’s concerted effort to shut down avenues of education and dialogue, as well as its disempowerment of small businesses and its stunting of economic growth,” Buckler said to McConnell, adding that threats to libraries, museums, entrepreneurship, and labor “strike at the heart of our democracy’s foundation.”

What Constitutes Irreparable Harm?

McConnell pointed out to Buckler that “the federal government makes a broad argument that economic harm is not irreparable harm,” because if a case is successful, the plaintiffs may recuperate their costs through damages. “Why isn’t this primarily a damages case that takes it out of the realm of irreparable harm and therefore injunctive relief?” McConnell asked.

“Broadly, the type of harm we’re alleging spans beyond purely economic damages, and the plaintiff states would not be able to be adequately compensated after the fact,” Buckler replied. She explained that the agencies and the public are experiencing “real consequences”—as opposed to speculative harm—that will continue if the three agencies are permanently scaled back.

As an example, Buckler named an ongoing two-week closure and internal reorganization of the Maine State Library (MSL), a direct result of lost IMLS funding. “The longer that IMLS is allowed to exist in the defunded state it is in right now, the more difficult it will be to put the pieces back together” in states including Maine, Buckler said. When McConnell, in reference to defendants’ claims, suggested Maine could reallocate funds to the library and request remuneration should the plaintiffs prevail, Buckler cited evidence on the docket to prove otherwise.

Sadeck also spoke about MSL. “If there’s a Maine resident who wants to go to their library today, they can’t,” she said. They “can’t undo the harm that’s happening today and next week” or recoup the loss of services at some future date, Sadeck said. “The implementation of the executive order and the closure decisions here have violated the APA [Administrative Procedure Act], the separation of powers, and the Take Care Clause,” and success on any one of these merits should be enough to grant the plaintiffs full injunctive relief.

Testifying for the defense, Abigail Stout of the U.S. Department of Justice called claims of irreparable harm “speculative in nature.” In the case of MSL, Stout said, “the closure is a direct result of the lack of funds, so it stems from monetary harm,” and “their existence is not threatened.” When an agency like FMCS is reduced to a fraction of its staff, she added, “disruption of services doesn’t mean there’s no mediation services available—they’ll just have to pay more for them.”

McConnell pressed Stout on the plaintiffs’ motion. “The states write that if the president believes that the federal government should cease supporting the nation’s libraries and museums, expanding economic opportunity to disadvantaged individuals, and resolving labor strife, … he’s free to advocate that view with Congress and the public,” McConnell said. “One option that our Constitution does not afford him, however, is to unilaterally destroy the agencies that Congress established to perform these functions. How do you respond to that? Didn’t [the executive branch] snub its nose at the mandate from Congress, and most egregiously perhaps with these three agencies?”

Stout called the plaintiffs’ motion “a bit hyperbolic in places,” reminding McConnell that “nowhere in [the executive order] does it say ‘abolish’ or ‘dismantle’” the agencies, which are to be reduced to their statutory mandates.

Both Buckler and Sadeck argued that the plaintiff states had provided evidence, whereas the defendants supplied none. The defendants “don’t put anything on the record to rebut the factual declarations that are before the court,” Buckler said.

McConnell seemed to agree on that point. “It’s actually frustrating … for a court to be presented with evidence on one side and no evidence at all on the other side,” he said. “It makes the job on some level much more difficult, even though ultimately it’s probably easier, because the evidence before me is uncontested.”

Reached for comment, EveryLibrary executive director John Chrastka referred to his organization’s latest statement. "We see the administration's argument that the states lack standing as facetious and their argument that neither APA nor ICA [Impoundment Control Act] applies as specious," he said. "Their statement that harm cannot be established—and that only economic harm should be used as a test—is crass." He added, “We think the case has merit and hope the judge schedules a trial or issues a judgment quickly.”

ALA's Case in D.C. District Court

Following the hearing in the 21 states' attorneys generals' lawsuit, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia set a date of April 30 for a motion hearing on the second suit, American Library Association v. Sonderling. In their suit, the ALA and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME) requested a preliminary injunction against the dismantling of the IMLS, terminating or transferring awarded grants, and reducing IMLS’s staff. The decision is good news for the plaintiffs who seek a resolution prior to May 4, the day a reduction in force is scheduled to take effect at IMLS.