A federal lawsuit over the abrupt cancellation of humanities grants has drawn national attention. The lawsuit, known as the humanities grants elimination lawsuit, challenges the government’s decision to cut funding from programs supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Thousands of organizations (museums, libraries, archives, educators, and state humanities councils) were left without funding after grants approved by Congress were terminated in April 2025. Advocates argue that these will disrupt educational programs and threaten the cultural and democratic values the humanities promote.
In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon ruled that the sudden termination of these grants was likely “unconstitutional”. He emphasized that “the United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President.” This ruling allows the lawsuit filed by Oregon Humanities and the Federation of State Humanities Councils to move forward. Similar court decisions, including a New York federal court ruling in July 2025, have reinforced that previously awarded grants cannot be canceled until legal proceedings conclude.
Key Takeaways
- The humanities grants elimination lawsuit challenges the government’s April 2025 cancellation of NEH and related grants.
- Judge Michael H. Simon ruled that cutting previously approved grants is likely unconstitutional, reinforcing Congress’s exclusive power over federal spending.
- Thousands of organizations, including museums, libraries, and educational institutions, have faced layoffs and program cancellations.
- Administrative changes at NEH/NEA, including staff departures and revised grant priorities, highlight the importance of the lawsuit for protecting federal funding procedures.
Why the Lawsuit Matters
The lawsuit underscores the broader societal role of humanities funding. Humanities programs support critical thinking and educational equity. Eliminating grants disproportionately affects underrepresented communities and public institutions that rely on federal funding to maintain access to arts, literature, and historical programs. As Adam Davis, executive director of Oregon Humanities, noted, the ruling is “one step, among many that are needed, in the large, ongoing endeavour to knit our communities and the country closer together.”
Federal funding for the humanities has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Judge Simon observed that Congress has consistently strengthened statutes governing the NEH and provided stable funding across generations. Despite this history, abrupt executive actions disrupted programs nationwide, prompting this legal challenge.
Thousands of organizations faced immediate consequences when funding was cut. Staff layoffs, and paused educational initiatives became common. Phoebe Stein, president of the Federation of State Humanities Councils, described the situation: “Humanities councils are still operating without their Congressionally appropriated funds, and many have already laid off staff and cancelled vital programs as a result.”
Students and educators are particularly affected. Universities have already reduced departmental resources in response to lost funding, and communities that depend on public cultural programs face diminished opportunities for engagement. The lawsuit highlights the human cost behind budgetary decisions and emphasizes the importance of transparency and congressional oversight in federal funding.
Also read about: Symmetry Financial Group Lawsuit
Administrative Changes and Appeals
Alongside the lawsuit, administrative shifts at the NEH and NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) complicated the landscape. Staff departures and new grant priority policies altered which projects could receive funding. Some organizations were given an opportunity to appeal grant terminations if their projects aligned with revised agency priorities, though appeals were not guaranteed to succeed. Guidance from nonprofit associations and legal counsel encouraged affected organizations to understand their rights and advocate to elected officials for continued funding.
These procedural steps intersect with the humanities grants elimination lawsuit, as they affect the practical enforcement of grants and the legal arguments concerning agency overreach. The court’s ruling reinforces that Congress, not administrative agencies, controls the allocation of these funds.
Also read about: Native Shampoo Lawsuit
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the humanities grants elimination lawsuit?
A federal legal challenge against the abrupt termination of NEH and related humanities grants, claiming the cuts were unconstitutional.
Which organizations are affected?
State humanities councils, museums, libraries, archives, educators, media outlets, and universities.
Why did the court rule the grant cuts unlawful?
Because the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority over federal spending, not the executive branch.
What are the societal implications of these cuts?
Reductions in humanities funding undermine educational equity, cultural engagement, and the development of critical thinking in communities nationwide.
Can organizations appeal terminated grants?
Yes, organizations could submit appeals if projects met revised agency priorities, though approval was not guaranteed.
