By As Law Online 
The humanities grants elimination lawsuit centers on the mass termination of more than 1,400 grants awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. In a May 7, 2026, ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York declared those terminations unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect.
The decision directly affects researchers, scholars, universities, museums, libraries, state humanities councils, and community organizations that relied on the funding for ongoing projects. It also raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers, the limits of executive authority over congressionally appropriated funds, and the procedures agencies must follow when terminating grants.
This article provides a factual overview of the litigation, the court’s holdings, and the practical consequences for individuals and institutions in the humanities fields. It draws from court records, statements by the parties, and public reporting on the proceedings.
Background on the National Endowment for the Humanities
Congress established the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1965 through the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act. The agency supports research, education, preservation, and public programs in history, literature, philosophy, languages, and related disciplines. Its grants typically undergo competitive peer review and support work at colleges and universities, museums, libraries, state humanities councils, and independent scholars.
NEH funding represents a relatively small portion of the federal budget but leverages additional private and institutional support. Grants often fund multi-year projects, including archival research, scholarly publications, teacher institutes, museum exhibitions, and community-based public humanities programs. Recipients receive awards with specific terms and conditions, and many incur expenses in reliance on the promised funding before receiving full reimbursement.
In early 2025, the incoming administration proposed eliminating the NEH entirely as part of its fiscal year 2026 budget request. Around the same time, the Department of Government Efficiency, an entity created by executive order to advise on spending reductions, became involved in reviewing NEH activities.
The April 2025 Grant Terminations
In April 2025, the NEH issued termination notices for more than 1,400 previously awarded grants. The affected grants totaled more than $100 million in congressionally appropriated funds. Many projects were already underway, with scholars and institutions having made financial commitments, hired staff, or scheduled public programs.
Termination notices were largely standardized and did not include individualized explanations tied to specific grant terms or performance issues. Recipients reported abrupt halts to research, canceled exhibitions, paused teacher training programs, and uncertainty over reimbursement for expenses already incurred.
State humanities councils, which partner with the NEH to deliver programs in every state, faced particular disruption because their federal funding streams supported matching grants and local initiatives. Museums, libraries, and community organizations that had planned programming around NEH-supported projects also reported immediate effects on staffing and public access.
Filing and Consolidation of the Humanities Grants Elimination Lawsuit
On May 1, 2025, the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, and the Modern Language Association filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that the terminations and related actions to suspend grant programs, reduce staff, and dismantle agency functions were unlawful.
A parallel case brought by The Authors Guild and several individual scholars whose grants had been terminated was later consolidated with the organizational plaintiffs’ action. The consolidated cases proceeded before U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon.
Plaintiffs named as defendants the NEH, its acting leadership, the Department of Government Efficiency, and certain DOGE personnel. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration that the terminations were invalid and an order restoring the grants.
Early in the litigation, the court issued a partial stay preventing enforcement of some cancellations for the individual scholar plaintiffs. The organizational plaintiffs pursued claims focused on both the specific grant terminations and broader agency restructuring.
Legal Claims Raised in the Litigation
The humanities grants elimination lawsuit asserted multiple independent grounds for relief under federal law and the Constitution.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, plaintiffs argued that the mass terminations constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action. Federal agencies generally must provide reasoned explanations for significant actions, follow statutory procedures, and consider relevant factors. Plaintiffs contended that the terminations bypassed required NEH processes, including review by the agency’s leadership and advisory bodies, and lacked individualized assessment of each grant.
Constitutional claims focused on separation of powers. The Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution assigns Congress the power of the purse. Plaintiffs argued that the executive branch cannot unilaterally refuse to spend funds that Congress has appropriated for specific purposes without following the procedures set out in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. That statute generally requires congressional approval for proposed rescissions of appropriated funds in many circumstances.
First Amendment claims alleged viewpoint discrimination. Plaintiffs asserted that the terminations targeted grants perceived to advance certain ideas or themes, such as those associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or work on topics involving race, gender, or marginalized communities. Government action that penalizes private speech based on its content or viewpoint is presumptively unconstitutional unless it satisfies strict scrutiny.
Fifth Amendment equal protection claims, applicable to the federal government through the Due Process Clause, alleged that the selection process for termination relied on classifications based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or ideological viewpoint without a sufficient justification.
Finally, plaintiffs contended that DOGE officials and certain NEH acting leaders acted ultra vires, meaning beyond their statutory authority. The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act assigns specific roles to the NEH Chairperson and established processes for grantmaking and termination. Plaintiffs argued that DOGE, an advisory body without independent statutory grantmaking or termination authority over NEH programs, could not lawfully direct or effectuate the mass cancellations.
Discovery and Evidence of the Review Process
During discovery, plaintiffs obtained internal documents, emails, spreadsheets, and deposition testimony describing how the terminations were implemented. Records indicated that DOGE personnel, including staff members in their twenties with limited experience in the humanities, played a central role in identifying grants for cancellation.
Evidence showed the use of keyword searches and artificial intelligence tools, including prompts directed at ChatGPT-style systems, to flag grants potentially related to “DEI,” specific demographic terms, or certain ideological content. Lists labeled “Craziest Grants” and “Other Bad Grants” were reportedly generated. Some communications referenced criteria tied to race, gender, immigration status, or perceived association with prior administration priorities.
Plaintiffs also filed a motion concerning alleged spoliation of electronic messages. The court record reflects that DOGE staff used ephemeral messaging applications, raising questions about preservation of federal records.
These materials formed part of the undisputed factual record on which the court later decided the summary judgment motions.
The May 7, 2026 Summary Judgment Ruling
On May 7, 2026, Judge McMahon issued a 143-page memorandum opinion and order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on all counts and denying the defendants’ cross-motion.
The court held that the mass termination of NEH grants was unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect. Specifically, the decision found violations of the First Amendment through viewpoint discrimination, violations of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and action without statutory authority.
The court concluded that DOGE officials exercised decisive control over the identification and termination of grants without statutory authorization to do so. It determined that the process relied on nonstatutory, ideological criteria rather than the standards and procedures established by Congress in the NEH’s organic statute. The terminations were deemed arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because they lacked individualized consideration and conformed to no statutory process for post-award termination.
On the constitutional claims, the court found that the government engaged in viewpoint discrimination by targeting grants based on their perceived content or association with disfavored ideas. It also found that the use of classifications based on protected characteristics triggered equal protection concerns that were not adequately justified.
Relief Ordered by the Court
The court granted declaratory relief stating that the mass termination was invalid. It issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing, implementing, or giving effect to the terminations. The government was ordered to rescind the termination notices sent to grantees and to treat those notices as without legal effect.
The court further directed that the government not reallocate, obligate, or otherwise dispose of the funds associated with the terminated awards on the basis of the mass termination or the grounds adjudicated as unlawful. Affected grant recipients were to receive written notice of the decision. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce its order.
The ruling applies to the certified class of affected grantees. It builds on earlier preliminary relief that had stayed some cancellations.
Practical Impacts on Researchers and Scholars
The humanities grants elimination lawsuit and the underlying terminations created immediate practical difficulties for many recipients. Scholars whose projects were midstream faced decisions about whether to pause work, seek bridge funding from universities or private foundations, or abandon elements of their research. Institutions that had budgeted for grant-supported salaries, travel, or equipment encountered shortfalls.
Public programs, including museum exhibitions, lecture series, teacher professional development institutes, and community history projects, were disrupted or canceled in multiple states. State humanities councils reported reduced capacity to match federal funds with local resources, affecting programming reach in rural and underserved areas.
Beyond direct financial effects, recipients and observers described a chilling impact on academic planning. Researchers and institutions reported uncertainty about the reliability of federal grant commitments and concerns that future awards could be subject to similar abrupt changes based on shifting policy priorities rather than merit or statutory criteria.
The court’s findings on viewpoint discrimination and equal protection highlighted risks to intellectual freedom when grant decisions turn on the perceived content of proposed or ongoing work rather than on established peer-review standards.
Broader Legal and Policy Context
The humanities grants elimination lawsuit sits within a longer history of disputes over executive authority to control or withhold appropriated funds. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was enacted in response to widespread presidential impoundments during the Nixon administration. Courts have repeatedly examined the boundaries between legitimate executive discretion in administering programs and impermissible refusal to spend congressionally directed funds.
The litigation also touches on questions of administrative procedure and the role of independent or quasi-independent agencies. The NEH operates under a statutory framework that includes specific grantmaking and termination authorities vested in its leadership and subject to defined processes. When entities outside that statutory structure direct or effectuate terminations, questions of ultra vires action arise.
The use of artificial intelligence tools and keyword-based screening in the termination process raises additional issues about transparency, consistency with statutory mandates, and the adequacy of administrative records. Federal agencies are generally required to maintain records that allow for meaningful judicial review of their decisions.
Current Status and Considerations for Affected Parties
As of early June 2026, the district court’s May 7, 2026, order remains in effect. The government has been directed to rescind the termination notices and restore the legal effect of the grants. Implementation details, including the precise mechanism for resuming funding and addressing expenses incurred during the period of termination, continue to develop through communications between the NEH and affected grantees.
Some aspects of the broader challenge to agency restructuring, such as staff reductions or program suspensions, were addressed in earlier phases of the litigation and may involve separate procedural postures or potential appellate review. Parties should monitor official NEH communications and court dockets for updates.
Individuals and institutions that received termination notices or that had grants affected by the mass termination should review their grant agreements, document any expenses incurred in reliance on the awards, and maintain records of communications with the agency. Organizations such as the ACLS, AHA, and MLA have provided updates to their members and may offer additional resources.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The law in this area is complex and fact-specific. Researchers, scholars, and institutions facing questions about their particular grants or rights should consult qualified legal counsel licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. Court orders and agency guidance can change, and parties should verify the most current information directly from official sources.
Conclusion
The humanities grants elimination lawsuit has produced a significant district court ruling that restores legal effect to more than 1,400 NEH grants and affirms core constitutional and statutory limits on executive action in the grantmaking context. The decision underscores the importance of following established administrative procedures and respecting congressional appropriations authority.
For the research community, the case highlights both the vulnerabilities created by abrupt funding changes and the availability of judicial review when those changes appear to deviate from legal requirements. The coming months will reveal how the court’s order is implemented in practice and whether further proceedings or appeals shape the longer-term framework for federal support of the humanities.
Researchers and scholars continue to monitor developments closely, as the outcome affects not only individual projects but also the stability of public investment in historical, cultural, and interpretive work across the United States.
You May Also Like: MSU Student Linglong Wei Lawsuit Explained: What You Need to Know