First Circuit Hears Arguments in Case Challenging Viewpoint-Based Penalties in Federal Funding for the Arts   

The First Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments today in Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts, a First Amendment case challenging viewpoint-based penalties in federal arts funding. The policy at issue was blocked by a federal district court last year, and the circuit court will now decide whether to uphold that decision.
The lawsuit was originally filed in early 2025 by a group of theater and arts organizations after the NEA forced applicants to attest that they would not use government funds to promote “gender ideology,” and made any project that the government perceived as “promoting gender ideology” ineligible for funding. That policy was in response to an executive order signed by President Trump prohibiting government funds from being used to promote “gender ideology.” After the ACLU filed suit, the NEA rescinded that policy and imposed a new one, which categorically disfavors funding for any project deemed to “promote gender ideology.”
The plaintiffs argue that the restrictions violate the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Meanwhile, the government argues that its funding decisions are government speech, and that considering viewpoints is consistent with the law that established the NEA. The government is relying on similar arguments in its attempts to restrict and terminate grants by other agencies, including in the realms of biomedical research and the humanities. The court’s decision in this case could therefore have implications for federal funding restrictions far beyond the arts.
“When RILA agreed to become lead plaintiff in this case, we knew the issue was bigger than us as a Latino cultural organization and bigger than the arts. We stepped forward because artists should never have to choose between access to public funding and the freedom to tell their stories fully and honestly,” said Marta V. Martínez, executive director of Rhode Island Latino Arts. “RILA is not an organization centered on gender identity, but LGBTQ+ artists are part of our community, and protecting their freedom of expression is part of our responsibility to all the artists we serve. If public funding can be conditioned on whether an organization’s work aligns with a particular ideological viewpoint, that has implications far beyond the arts. Today, it’s about NEA funding, but tomorrow it could affect other sectors and communities. For RILA, this has always been about protecting the freedom to create and fully tell our stories.”
“This case matters not only for artistic freedom, but also for First Amendment limits on government funding writ large,” said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The government has no affirmative obligation to fund private speech, including art—but once it does, it can’t pick and choose who receives financial support based on viewpoint. Otherwise, the government could leverage its enormous financial resources to impose ideological conformity across society. That would discourage free thinking, dampen creativity, and make for worse art—the opposite of everything Congress intended to do when it created the NEA.”
“This case will have ramifications well beyond just artists, as it will lay out the standards of whether the government can require ideological uniformity as a condition of federal funding” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “We will continue to show up and challenge the federal government’s censorial and unconstitutional restriction on speech and artistic freedom.”
The ACLU, the ACLU of Rhode Island, David Cole, and Lynette Labinger, cooperating counsel for the ACLU-RI, filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive, and the Theater Communications Group. You can read more about the case here.