'Important victory' for free speech as judge rules against Trump

In another judicial rebuke to President Donald Trump’s effort to harm funding for the nation’s arts, a federal judge on Friday evening ruled against the president’s insider attack on the National Endowment for the Arts by blocking grant applications from artists or organizations that don’t strictly adhere to the president’s right-wing ideology on gender.

Ruling in favor of several arts organizations that sued the NEA earlier this year over the policy change, US District Court Judge William E. Smith, appointed by President George W. Bush and serving in Rhode Island, said the grant restrictions ran afoul of federal statute and the US Constitution.

As the New York Timesreports:

The lawsuit was filed in March by several arts organizations, including Rhode Island Latino Arts, which promotes art made by Latinos, and National Queer Theater, a New York company. It challenged new agency regulations, initially introduced in February, stating that federal funds “shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” which Mr. Trump’s order said includes “the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”In the lawsuit, the groups, which said they had all produced or supported work about transgender and nonbinary people, argued that they would effectively be barred from seeking grants “on artistic merit and excellence grounds,” which violated their rights under the First Amendment.

In his ruling, Williams called the policy that came out of Trump’s edict both “arbitrary and capricious,” one that violated not only free speech protections but also the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the EPA grant-making process.

Smith held that the NEA’s grant application review process “violates the First Amendment because it is a viewpoint-based restriction on private speech.”

Specifically, the judge said the government’s policy “offered zero explanation” to applicants “of what it means for a project to ‘promote gender ideology,’ let alone how that concept relates to artistic merit, artistic excellence, general standards of decency, or respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.”

“The NEA intends to disfavor applications that promote gender ideology precisely because they promote gender ideology,” Smith stated in his judicial order. “The Final Notice therefore promises to penalize artists based on their speech.”

The lawsuit was brought four groups: Rhode Island Latino Arts (RILA), National Queer Theater (NQT), The Theater Offensive (TTO), and Theatre Communications Group (TCG).

Marta V. Martínez, RILA’s executive director, said the court’s ruling “affirms what we have always believed: the freedom to create, to express one’s truth, and to tell our stories is a right protected by the First Amendment.”

“As an organization deeply rooted in storytelling, theater, and the preservation of cultural history,” Martínez added, “we are relieved and grateful that the courts have recognized the importance of protecting artistic expression for all people, including those in LGBTQ+ communities.”

The ACLU, which had helped bring the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, celebrated the ruling as “an important victory” for artists, free speech, and the rule of law.

“At a time when the government is using its full weight to try to impose ideological conformity, this order is an important reminder that the First Amendment protects us from exactly that,” Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. “Even when the government funds private speech, it does not get to support only those messages that parrot its views.”