Back

When Grants Become Grievances: Woodmere’s Battle for a Federal Grant

September 28, 2025

Center for Art Law Woodmere Article Donate

By Lauren Stein

On August 26, 2025, the Woodmere Art Museum (Woodmere), a Pennsylvania nonprofit museum, filed a complaint alleging the federal government improperly terminated Woodmere’s Save America’s Treasures grant of $750,000. Woodmere named Donald J. Trump, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Keith Sonderling, the Acting Director of the IMLS, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and Russell T. Vought, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, collectively Defendants.

Woodmere Art Museum first opened to the public in 1910, with a mission dedicated to celebrating the art and artists of Philadelphia.^{^[1]} The building, grounds, and the majority of the collection were gifts of Charles Knox Smith (1845-1916), a nineteenth and twentieth-century Philadelphian art collector. ^{^[2]} The collection owned by Woodmere currently boasts more than 8,000 pieces.^{^[3]} Per Woodmere’s Form 990, in 2023, Woodmere expended a total of $3,769,533 in functional expenses for all its operations.^{^[4]} From 2022 to 2023, Woodmere’s net assets grew $2,174,523, from $34,569,474 to $36,743,997.

Like many museums, Woodmere relies on grants from the federal government to sustain their operations. The Institute of Museum and Library Services was initially created and funded by Congress in 1996 with a mission to “advance, support, and empower America’s museums, libraries, and related organizations through grantmaking, research, and policy development.”^{^[5]} In 2024, the IMLS awarded $266.7 million through grantmaking, research, and policy development, distributed to museums, libraries, and related organizations.^{^[6]}

In September 2024, the IMLS awarded Woodmere a $750,000 Save America’s Treasures (SAT) grant.^{^[7]} President Bill Clinton established the SAT initiative in February 1998 as a grant program to help preserve “nationally significant historic properties and collections that convey our nation’s rich heritage to future generations.”^{^[8]} Since its inception, the SAT program has awarded more than 1,300 grants in excess of $300 million.^{^[9]} The IMLS determined Woodmere’s collection was “‘nationally significant’” and granted Woodmere the largest SAT award possible, $750,000.^{^[10]} The grant was to be available to Woodmere from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2026.^{^[11]}

Relying on the grant, Woodmere embarked on an “ambitious conservation project” to ready an exhibition of Philadelphia artists set for 2026 to coincide with the America 250 celebration.^{^[12]} Additionally, Woodmere entered into numerous contracts for art conservation work related to the project, many with local professionals, to ensure that it would “achieve its project goals” by September 30, 2026, when the grant was set to expire.^{^[13]} Woodmere planned to install new storage facilities, address collection crowding, and improve cataloguing efforts.^{^[14]} As required by the conditions of the SAT grant, Woodmere raised an additional $750,000 to match, dollar-for-dollar, the total amount of the grant.^{^[15]} The museum received just $195,002 of funding before the grant was terminated.^{^[16]}

On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14238 that directed the IMLS to eliminate its “non-statutory components and functions” to the “maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”^{^[17]} In the Executive Order, President Trump also ordered the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to reject funding requests for the IMLS “to the extent they are inconsistent with [the Executive Order].”^{^[18]}

In compliance with Executive Order No. 14238, on April 8, 2025, Keith Sonderling emailed Woodmere that its SAT grant was being terminated “in its entirety,” effective immediately, “with no explanation other than a statement that the SAT grant is no longer consistent with the agency’s priorities and no longer serves the interest of the United States.”^{^[19]} On May 8, 2025, Woodmere requested that Keith Sonderling review the termination of its SAT grant.^{^[20]} Woodmere did not receive a response to its initial request, nor its follow-up requests.^{^[21]}

Claims for Relief

At the end of August, Woodmere, by its attorneys John P. McShea, Ralph J, Kelly, and Donna Brennan-Scott, brought the following claims for relief:

Count 1: Violation of the Appropriations Clause (Against all Defendants)

The Appropriations Clause is an “‘explicit command’ that ‘no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.’”^{^[22]} Woodmere argued that, since Congress expressly directed funds be expended for the operations of agencies it created (here, the IMLS), the Executive Order to deny appropriate funds be expended is unconstitutional because it “infringes on Congress’ appropriations power.”^{^[23]}

Count II: Violation of Separation of Powers – Usurping Legislative Authority (Against All Defendants)

Woodmere argued that all legislative powers are vested in Congress, and the Constitution “‘exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President.’”^{^[24]} Woodmere additionally stated that the Executive has “no power ‘to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes’” and that the Executive must “expend the funds that Congress duly authorizes and appropriates.”^{^[25]} Hence, Woodmere argues that where the Executive Branch “overrides a statute or the legislative intent of Congress, it violates the separation of powers doctrine.” Thus, the Executive cannot gut the IMLS and incapacitate its ability to conduct statutorily assigned duties, including administering grants.

Count III: Violation of Take Care Clause (Against All Defendants)

The Take Care Clause provides that the Executive must “‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”^{^[26]} The Executive violates the Take Care Clause, “where it overrides statutes enacted by Congress and signed into law.”^{^[27]} Congress created the IMLS. Woodmere argued that by dismantling the IMLS, the Executive failed to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, in violation of the Take Care Clause.

Count IV: Violation of Administrative Procedure Act; Arbitrary and Capricious and Abuse of Discretion (Against IMLS)

IMLS is an “agency” per the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).^{^[28]} The APA requires “courts to ‘hold unlawful and set aside’ agency actions that are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’”^{^[29]} An agency action is arbitrary or capricious where the agency fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.^{^[30]}

The Executive did not articulate why it gutted the IMLS and terminated Woodmere’s SAT grant. Additionally, IMLS did not explain the decision to ignore Woodmere’s request to reinstate the grant. Nor did the IMLS explain why it chose to restore similar grants to other Philadelphia museums, the Atwater Kent Museum and Historic Germantown.^{^[31]} IMLS also failed to consider reasonable alternatives to the elimination or reduction of its programs and functions.^{^[32]}

Count V: Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, § 706(1) (Against Defendants Sonderling and the IMLS)

The IMLS imposes mandatory duties on its Director to disburse various grants.^{^[33]} Congress appropriated specific funds for IMLS to expend for these grants. Accordingly, Defendants have “non-discretionary duties to issue grants and to disburse funds appropriated for that purpose.” Therefore, Woodmere seeks the Court to compel IMLS to issue the grants it, by statute, is required to do.

Count VI: Equitable Ultra Vires (Against all Defendants)

Woodmere states that “federal courts possess the power in equity to grant injunctive relief ‘with respect to violations of federal laws by federal officials.’”^{^[34]} The Defendants acted outside the scope of their authority and in contravention of the law. Therefore, Woodmere is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring the actions challenged within its complaint.

The End of the Case:

Less than two weeks later, on September 5, 2025, Woodmere voluntarily dismissed the complaint after the IMLS reinstated the full $750,000 grant.^{^[35]} As reported by ARTnews, on September 4, the IMLS sent a Letter of Reinstatement stating the IMLS “has completed the termination review process and will be reinstating [Woodmere’s] federal grant. This action supersedes any previous notices you may have received related to grant termination.”^{^[36]} Although Woodmere’s voluntary dismissal closed this chapter, similar challenges are almost inevitable. As the federal government cuts federal grant appropriations, more museums are likely to turn to litigation as a means of protecting their financial interests and ability to carry out their missions.

About the Author:

Lauren Stein is a law student at Wake Forest University School of Law and an intern with the Center for Art Law for the 2025-2026 academic year. She is currently pursuing a career in art law in New York.

Canada pledges an artist’s resale royalty—can the United States follow “suite”?

Abraham and Isaac: Sculptures returned home after Spanish Supreme Court decision

Changes in U.S. and U.K. Restitution Laws are Afoot, Museums are Worried, Claimants are Cautiously Optimistic, ADR Practitioners are Attentive – Where Does This Leave us?