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

Theater and arts groups asked the court to uphold a court ruling that blocked the government from restricting NEA funding based on perceived ideology

October 7, 2026 12:00 pm

Media Contact
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
United States

BOSTON 鈥� 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.

鈥淭his case matters not only for artistic freedom, but also for First Amendment limits on government funding writ large,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 桃子视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he government has no affirmative obligation to fund private speech, including art鈥攂ut once it does, it can鈥檛 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鈥攖he opposite of everything Congress intended to do when it created the NEA.鈥�

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 鈥済ender ideology,鈥� and made any project that the government perceived as 鈥減romoting gender ideology鈥� ineligible for funding. That policy was in response to an executive order signed by President Trump prohibiting government funds from being used to promote 鈥済ender ideology.鈥� After the 桃子视频filed suit, the NEA rescinded that policy and imposed a new one, which categorically disfavors funding for any project deemed to 鈥減romote gender ideology.鈥�

鈥�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,鈥� said Marta V. Mart铆nez, executive director of Rhode Island Latino Arts. 鈥淩ILA 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鈥檚 work aligns with a particular ideological viewpoint, that has implications far beyond the arts. Today, it鈥檚 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.鈥�

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鈥檚 decision in this case could therefore have implications for federal funding restrictions far beyond the arts.

鈥淭his 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鈥� said Steven Brown, executive director of the 桃子视频of Rhode Island. 鈥淲e will continue to show up and challenge the federal government鈥檚 censorial and unconstitutional restriction on speech and artistic freedom.鈥�

The ACLU, the 桃子视频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.


Related 桃子视频