Humanities Grants Elimination Lawsuit: Federal Court Rules NEH Cuts Unconstitutional

A federal judge dealt a historic blow to the Trump administration’s dismantlement of the National Endowment for the Humanities. On May 7, 2026, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the mass termination of more than 1,400 NEH grants was “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect.”

That ruling came after more than a year of federal litigation. It resolved one of the most consequential legal challenges to executive authority over congressionally approved funding in recent memory. This article covers the full case record — who filed, what the court found, what DOGE’s role was, and what grant recipients must do now.

What Is the Humanities Grants Elimination Lawsuit?

The humanities grants elimination lawsuit is a federal legal challenge to the Trump administration’s termination of National Endowment for the Humanities grants across all 50 states. The case is captioned as Case No. 1:25-cv-03923, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That detail matters. Several other outlets incorrectly identified the venue as the District of Columbia.

The American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), the American Historical Association (AHA), the Modern Language Association (MLA), and the Authors Guild filed the lawsuit on May 1, 2025. The Phi Beta Kappa Society contributed to the effort. The Jacobson Lawyers Group represented the plaintiffs.

The core claim is straightforward. Congress authorized and appropriated NEH funding. The executive branch cannot cancel that funding unilaterally. The plaintiffs argued that the mass terminations violated federal law, the U.S. Constitution, and the NEH’s own grant administration regulations.

What Happened to NEH Grants in April 2025?

The NEH has operated as an independent federal agency since Congress established it in 1965. Over six decades, it has awarded more than $6 billion in grants to scholars, libraries, universities, state humanities councils, museums, and community programs. That record came to an abrupt halt in April 2025.

The Department of Government Efficiency targeted the NEH as part of a broader federal reduction effort. What followed was the largest mass termination of previously awarded grants in NEH history. The agency sent termination notices to active grantees across the country. More than 1,400 grants stopped. Those grants represented over $100 million in congressionally appropriated funds.

The NEH also placed 65 percent of its staff on administrative leave and suspended entire grant programs and internal divisions. Recipients received form letters. There was no individualized explanation. There was no appeal process.

The losses hit every region. State humanities councils lost their federal pass-through funding. Universities saw mid-stream research projects stop. Museums lost programming grants. Documentary filmmakers, archivists, and public historians found their award letters voided without legal process. Congress had appropriated $207 million to the NEH for fiscal year 2024. The administration’s refusal to distribute that money raised immediate questions about statutory compliance under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

The DOGE-ChatGPT Revelation: How Grants Were Targeted

Discovery produced one of the most significant revelations in the case. The Department of Government Efficiency used a flawed ChatGPT process to identify which NEH grants to cancel. DOGE staff fed grant descriptions into an AI tool. The tool flagged grants that contained words such as “history,” “culture,” and “identity” as potential DEI programs. Those flagged grants went onto a cancellation list.

That process was neither accurate nor legally authorized. Grants about American military history, Native language preservation, and civic education appeared on the list. The AI tool did not distinguish subject matter, academic context, or grant purpose. It matched keywords. The discovery documents also revealed that DOGE and NEH staff used the Signal messaging application to communicate about grant termination decisions. That practice violated the Federal Records Act, which requires the preservation of federal communications related to agency decisions. This is a separate and significant legal violation that no competitor article addresses.

Two key depositions made the record plain. Justin Fox, a DOGE team member, was deposed on January 28, 2026. Adam Wolfson, NEH Assistant Chair for Programs, was deposed on January 29, 2026. Michael McDonald, who served as NEH General Counsel and Acting Chair from March 2025 to January 2026, gave his deposition on January 30, 2026.

Those depositions confirmed three things. First, DOGE staff made termination decisions despite having no legal authority over NEH grant programs. Second, the Signal communications violated federal records law. Third, some grants were terminated even after NEH staff concluded they did not conflict with the administration’s stated policy priorities.

DOGE has faced legal scrutiny on multiple fronts. Read our full breakdown of the DOGE transparency FOIA lawsuit to understand the broader legal challenges surrounding the agency’s operations and record-keeping practices.

Who Filed the Lawsuit and Who Are the Defendants?

Plaintiffs:

• American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS)
• American Historical Association (AHA)
• Modern Language Association (MLA)
• The Authors Guild
• Phi Beta Kappa Society (advisory and coordinating role)

All three lead plaintiff organizations are represented on the National Humanities Alliance executive committee. As membership organizations whose own grants were terminated, each had direct standing to bring the suit. The membership standing argument also extended to documented harm to individual members — scholars, researchers, and educators whose work stopped when the grants ended.

Defendants:

The defendants are federal government officials responsible for the terminations, including NEH leadership under the current administration and executive branch officials connected to DOGE’s role in the process.

Represented by: The Jacobson Lawyers Group

The Legal Arguments: Four Constitutional and Statutory Claims

The lawsuit rested on four distinct legal theories. Competitors covered three at most. The Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is largely absent from other coverage.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — Arbitrary and Capricious Action

The APA governs how federal agencies act. Under 5 U.S.C. Section 706, courts can set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law. The mass terminations had no individualized reasoning. NEH’s own grant regulations required notice and process before termination. The administration skipped those steps entirely. That procedural failure is an APA violation on its face.

First Amendment — Viewpoint Discrimination

The government cannot terminate federal grants because of the subject matter or perspective of the funded work. The DOGE-ChatGPT review process flagged grants based on specific words and themes. That pattern constitutes viewpoint-based discrimination in federal funding, which the First Amendment prohibits.

Fifth Amendment — Equal Protection

The equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from discriminating against groups or viewpoints without lawful justification. The discovery documents showed a spreadsheet that classified grants by DEI “involvement” ratings — high, medium, low, or N/A. Termination decisions tracked those ratings. That selective treatment based on subject matter content triggered Fifth Amendment scrutiny.

Separation of Powers and Impoundment Control Act

Congress holds the power of the purse under Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Congress passed NEH appropriations. The President signed them into law. The executive branch had a legal obligation to spend those funds.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed precisely to prevent the executive from refusing to spend congressional appropriations. President Nixon’s impoundment of funds led directly to that statute. The administration’s refusal to distribute NEH grants echoed that precedent and put the executive on legally uncertain ground.

Litigation funding rules also play a role in how advocacy organizations sustain long-term federal challenges. Learn more about cham law and modern litigation funding rules and how they apply to cases like this one.

The May 7, 2026 Ruling: What Judge McMahon Decided

Judge Colleen McMahon, a senior judge in the Southern District of New York, issued a 143-page decision on May 7, 2026. She granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on all counts.

The ruling declared that the April 2025 grant terminations were:

• In violation of the First Amendment
• In violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment
• Without statutory authority
• “Unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect”

That language — ultra vires — carries precise legal meaning. It means the government acted beyond the powers the law grants it. The terminations had no legal foundation. Judge McMahon issued a permanent bar. The administration cannot terminate the grants. The government must rescind all termination letters sent to the 1,400-plus affected recipients.

This is the most recent and most authoritative development in the case. Neither of the two main competitor articles covers this ruling. Both were published before May 7, 2026.

What the Ruling Does and Does Not Do

This distinction is critical — and completely absent from competitor coverage. Judge McMahon ordered the government to rescind termination letters. That order does not automatically compel payment of grant funds.

The authority to compel the government to pay federal funds lies with the Court of Federal Claims, not the district court. That means grant recipients whose termination letters are rescinded may still need to pursue a separate legal process to receive actual payment if the administration does not voluntarily restore the funds.

Grant recipients should take the following steps now:

• Preserve all documentation: grant award letters, termination notices, spending records, and any matching fund commitments made before termination
• Confirm the status of your grant period — recipients whose grant period remains active have the strongest claim to full reinstatement
• Monitor case developments through the ACLS, AHA, and MLA websites, which provide official case updates
• Consult legal counsel if your organization committed matching funds or incurred costs between termination and the ruling date

The Second Circuit Appeal: What Remains Unresolved

The May 7 ruling addressed grant terminations. The lawsuit is not fully resolved. A parallel appeal is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That appeal covers the broader dismantlement of NEH offices, programs, and staff capacity — the structural damage beyond individual grants. Oral arguments were scheduled for May 29, 2026.

The outcome of that appeal will determine whether the NEH can fully resume operations or whether the agency’s institutional capacity remains compromised even after the grant terminations are reversed.

If the government appeals the district court’s May 7 ruling to the Second Circuit, Judge McMahon’s permanent injunction remains in effect unless a higher court specifically stays it. The White House and Department of Justice did not comment on appeal plans immediately after the ruling.

Who Is Affected and Who Qualifies as an Affected Party

Any individual, organization, or institution that held an active NEH grant terminated in April 2025 or later may be an affected party in this litigation.

That includes:

• Individual scholars and researchers whose project grants were cut
• Nonprofit organizations that lost operational or program grants
• Universities and colleges whose faculty research or graduate fellowship grants were terminated
• Museums and cultural institutions that lost programming grants
• State humanities councils that received NEH pass-through funding
• Documentary filmmakers and public historians whose project awards were voided
• Libraries and archival organizations whose preservation grants were cancelled

Standing in federal court requires a concrete, documented injury caused by the government’s action. A terminated grant award letter paired with a termination notice is exactly that kind of injury. Organizations that had committed matching funds before their NEH grants were pulled may also have reliance damage claims even if their original grant period has expired.

Case Timeline

FAQs

Why was Justin Fox deposed?

Justin Fox was a DOGE team member deposed on January 28, 2026, as part of the ACLS-AHA-MLA lawsuit. His deposition confirmed that DOGE staff made grant termination decisions at the NEH without legal authority to do so. It also revealed that DOGE used Signal to communicate about those decisions, in violation of the Federal Records Act.

Does the National Endowment for the Humanities still exist?

Yes. The NEH still exists as a federal agency. However, its operational capacity remains severely limited. The administration placed 65 percent of its staff on leave and suspended entire internal divisions. The May 7, 2026, court ruling ordered the government to restore terminated grants. A separate Second Circuit appeal addresses the broader dismantlement of NEH offices and programs.

What are federal humanities grants?

Federal humanities grants are awards issued by the National Endowment for the Humanities to support research, education, and public programming in areas such as history, literature, languages, philosophy, and culture. Recipients include universities, libraries, museums, state humanities councils, documentary filmmakers, and independent scholars. Before the 2025 cuts, the NEH distributed approximately $180 million in grants annually across all 50 states.

Will NEH grants be reinstated?

A federal court ordered reinstatement on May 7, 2026. Judge Colleen McMahon ruled the terminations unlawful and directed the government to rescind all termination letters. However, rescission does not guarantee immediate payment. The Court of Federal Claims holds jurisdiction over compelling actual fund disbursement. Recipients should preserve all grant documentation and monitor official updates from the ACLS, AHA, and MLA.

What This Case Means

This case is not a narrow administrative dispute. It is a direct challenge to whether the executive branch can override congressional spending decisions by executive action alone. Congress created the NEH. Congress funded it. The Court confirmed that the executive had no authority to dismantle what the legislature had built and financed.

The ruling is a significant precedent. Federal agencies that received congressional appropriations cannot have those funds cancelled by executive directive without meeting the legal standards the APA, the Constitution, and their own regulations require. Grant recipients across all 50 states now have a federal court judgment on their side. The process of actual fund restoration, however, continues. The Second Circuit appeal on NEH’s structural dismantlement will determine the agency’s long-term operational future.

This article is based on public court records, official press releases from the ACLS, AHA, and MLA, discovery materials filed in Case No. 1:25-cv-03923, and reporting from Inside Higher Ed, the New York Almanack, and Publishers Weekly. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Written by

Sadia Parveen

Sadia Parveen is a content writer at ClassAction24.com who creates informational articles on class action lawsuits, consumer protection matters, and legal developments. Her work focuses on researching publicly available information and presenting it in a clear and neutral format for general readers. She does not provide legal advice or professional legal services.

EmailLinkedInFacebook