Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 621

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

576

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS v. FINLEY

Opinion of the Court

tional Endowment for the Arts 83–91 (Sept. 1990), 3 Record,
Doc. No. 51, Exh. K (hereinafter Report to Congress).

Informed by the Commission’s recommendations, and cog-
nizant of pending judicial challenges to the funding limita-
tions in the 1990 appropriations bill, Congress debated sev-
eral proposals to reform the NEA’s grant-making process
when it considered the agency’s reauthorization in the fall
of 1990. The House rejected the Crane Amendment, which
would have virtually eliminated the NEA, see 136 Cong.
Rec. 28656–28657 (1990), and the Rohrabacher Amendment,
which would have introduced a prohibition on awarding any
grants that could be used to “promote, distribute, dissemi-
nate, or produce matter that has the purpose or effect of
denigrating the beliefs, tenets, or objects of a particular reli-
gion” or “of denigrating an individual, or group of individuals,
on the basis of race, sex, handicap, or national origin,” id.,
at 28657–28664. Ultimately, Congress adopted the Williams/
Coleman Amendment, a bipartisan compromise between
Members opposing any funding restrictions and those fa-
voring some guidance to the agency.
In relevant part, the
Amendment became § 954(d)(1), which directs the Chairper-
son, in establishing procedures to judge the artistic merit
of grant applications, to “tak[e] into consideration general
standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and
values of the American public.” *

*Title 20 U. S. C. § 954(d) provides in full that:
“No payment shall be made under this section except upon application
therefor which is submitted to the National Endowment for the Arts in
accordance with regulations issued and procedures established by the
Chairperson.
In establishing such regulations and procedures, the Chair-
person shall ensure that—

“(1) artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which appli-
cations are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency
and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public; and
“(2) applications are consistent with the purposes of this section. Such
regulations and procedures shall clearly indicate that obscenity is without
artistic merit, is not protected speech, and shall not be funded.”