Case: Oregon Council for the Humanities v. United States DOGE Service
3:25-cv-00829 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Filed Date: May 15, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges the alleged illegal termination of grant money for state and jurisdictional humanities councils by the United States DOGE Service.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) was established by Congress in 1965 with the declaration that "The arts and the humanities belong to all the people of the United States". The goal was to provide funding for research, publication of scholarly works, and the promotion of the humanities. Congress also created a statutory framework to protect the agency from political influence. In 1972, Congress amended the NEH statutes to create grants-in-aid programs for each state and territory, which led to the funding of state and jurisdictional humanities councils. The Federation of State Humanities Councils, founded in 1977, is a non-profit organization that includes almost all of the 56 state and jurisdictional humanities councils as members. The Federation's mission is to advocate for increased investment in and engagement with this national network, and to support and amplify the work of its members. An example is the Oregon Council for the Humanities (Oregon Humanities), a non-profit corporation created in 1971 to distribute NEH funds for public humanities projects throughout Oregon.
Executive Order 14158, signed on January 20, 2025, by President Trump, created the "United States DOGE Service" (DOGE) as part of the Executive Office of the President. Following the order, the chair of the NEH was directed to resign in March 2025, and the NEH was allegedly instructed to review grants issued since 2021 for potential violations of new executive orders. This review allegedly resulted in the termination of nearly all grants to state and jurisdictional councils in March and April 2025, halting their operations and prompting the filing of this lawsuit.
On May 15, 2025, the Oregon Council for the Humanities and the Federation of State Humanities Councils filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against DOGE and its Acting Administrator, the NEH and its Acting Chairman, and the National Council on the Humanities. They argued that the termination of the grants violated the National Council on the Humanities' grant statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Separation of Powers, and exceeded DOGE's legal authority. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought an order directing the NEH to follow proper procedures for grant applications and funding, to continue providing funds appropriated by Congress to the Federation's members, and to set aside the unlawful termination of grants. The case was assigned to Judge Michael Howard Simon.
The plaintiffs alleged that DOGE illegally “gutted the NEH and terminated almost all grants issued to the state and jurisdictional councils” without reasoned analysis or proper notice and opportunity to appeal as required by law. They argued that these actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Separation of Powers, as Congress, not the President, has the power to create agencies and direct how federal funds are spent. The plaintiffs claimed that the NEH could not refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress and that the delays and grant terminations caused “irreparable harm” to the Federation and its members, including councils terminating staff, canceling events, and risking permanent closure due to the loss of millions of dollars in already-awarded funding.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 11, 2025, underscoring the central role of federal grants in their work and including a table of congressional appropriations through 2024 to demonstrate Congress’s ongoing support for the program. The amended complaint also added a new section addressing NEH’s purported “rescission” on June 2 of the 2025 grant terminations, contending that the rescission letters were largely boilerplate, lacked individualized analysis, and still resulted in significant funding cuts while maintaining the rescission of other types of grants. Finally, the amended complaint introduced a new claim for relief under the Impoundment Control Act and the Appropriations Clause, asserting that the grant terminations were ultra vires.
On June 25, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that they were likely to succeed on the merits. They also claimed that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, citing the need for councils to terminate staff, cancel events, and face potential permanent closure. They also argued that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction, as it would prevent unlawful agency action and protect the humanities.
On July 7, 2025, the states of Oregon, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the District of Columbia filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, citing unlawful termination of NEH grants to their humanities councils. The brief emphasized the cultural and legal interests at stake, the councils’ close ties to state governments, and argued the court had jurisdiction because the claims rested on statutory and constitutional grounds, not contract law, making the Tucker Act inapplicable. It supported the plaintiffs’ showing of likely success, irreparable harm, and a public interest in preserving funding, noting specific harms such as program pauses and potential cancellation of the nation’s 250th anniversary celebrations.
On August 6, 2025, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, specifically citing violations of the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 2025 WL 2237478. The court rejected the defendants' argument that they had the discretion to terminate grants, emphasizing that the Executive Branch cannot refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds. Furthermore, the court agreed that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the public interest favored the injunction to prevent unlawful agency action and to protect the humanities.
As of November 22, 2025, the defendants have filed their answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint, and have not yet filed motions regarding the preliminary injunction
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Scott Shuchart (5/21/2025)
Jeremiah Price (6/19/2025)
Victoria Tan (8/13/2025)
Sofia Yoder (11/22/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70275737/parties/oregon-council-for-the-humanities-v-united-states-doge-service/
Balmer, Paul M. (Oregon)
Nagle, Gracey (Oregon)
Martin, Sean E. (Oregon)
Howell, Coby Healy (Oregon)
Jamieson, Keith (Oregon)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70275737/oregon-council-for-the-humanities-v-united-states-doge-service/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:52 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 15, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A state NEH grantee and a national council of state grantee agencies
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
National Council on the Humanities
U.S. DOGE Service
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
District of Oregon 3:25-cv-00829
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency)
Impoundment (mandatory spending)
Case Summary of Oregon Council for the Humanities v. United States DOGE Service, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/46602/ (last updated 11/22/2025).