Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 637.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

592

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS v. FINLEY

Scalia, J., concurring in judgment

in no way increases the odds that the panel will take the
factors into consideration—much less ensures that the panel
will do so, which is the Chairperson’s duty under the statute.
Moreover, the NEA’s fanciful reading of § 954(d)(1) would
make it wholly superﬂuous. Section 959(c) already requires
the Chairperson to “issue regulations and establish proce-
dures .
. to ensure that all panels are composed, to the
extent practicable, of individuals reﬂecting . . . diverse artis-
tic and cultural points of view.”

.

The statute requires the decency and respect factors to be
considered in evaluating all applications—not, for example,
just those applications relating to educational programs,
ante, at 584, or intended for a particular audience, ante, at
585.
Just as it would violate the statute to apply the artistic
excellence and merit requirements to only select categories
of applications, it would violate the statute to apply the de-
cency and respect factors less than universally. A reviewer
may, of course, give varying weight to the factors depending
on the context, and in some categories of cases (such as the
Court’s example of funding for symphony orchestras, ante,
at 583) the factors may rarely if ever affect the outcome; but
§ 954(d)(1) requires the factors to be considered in every case.
I agree with the Court that § 954(d)(1) “imposes no cat-
egorical requirement,” ante, at 581,
in the sense that it
does not require the denial of all applications that violate
general standards of decency or exhibit disrespect for the
diverse beliefs and values of Americans. Cf. § 954(d)(2)
(“[O]bscenity . . . shall not be funded”). But the factors need
not be conclusive to be discriminatory. To the extent a par-
ticular applicant exhibits disrespect for the diverse beliefs
and values of the American public or fails to comport with
general standards of decency, the likelihood that he will re-
ceive a grant diminishes.
In other words, the presence of
the “tak[e] into consideration” clause “cannot be regarded as
it means something,” Potter v. United
mere surplusage;