Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 615.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

570

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS v. FINLEY

Syllabus

The Ninth Circuit afﬁrmed, holding that § 954(d)(1), on its face, imper-
missibly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and is void for vague-
ness under the First and Fifth Amendments.

Held: Section 954(d)(1) is facially valid, as it neither inherently interferes
with First Amendment rights nor violates constitutional vagueness
principles. Pp. 580–590.

(a) Respondents confront a heavy burden in advancing their facial
constitutional challenge, and they have not demonstrated a substantial
risk that application of § 954(d)(1) will lead to the suppression of free
expression, see Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 615. The prem-
ise of respondents’ claim is that § 954(d)(1) constrains the agency’s ability
to fund certain categories of artistic expression. The provision, how-
ever, simply adds “considerations” to the grant-making process; it does
not preclude awards to projects that might be deemed “indecent” or
“disrespectful,” nor place conditions on grants, or even specify that
those factors must be given any particular weight in reviewing an appli-
cation. Regardless of whether the NEA’s view that the formulation of
diverse advisory panels is sufﬁcient to comply with Congress’ command
is in fact a reasonable reading, § 954(d)(1)’s plain text clearly does not
impose a categorical requirement. Furthermore, the political context
surrounding the “decency and respect” clause’s adoption is inconsistent
with respondents’ assertion. The legislation was a bipartisan proposal
introduced as a counterweight to amendments that would have elimi-
nated the NEA’s funding or substantially constrained its grant-making
authority. Section 954(d)(1) merely admonishes the NEA to take “de-
cency and respect” into consideration, and the Court does not perceive
a realistic danger that it will be utilized to preclude or punish the ex-
pression of particular views. The Court typically strikes down legisla-
tion as facially unconstitutional when the dangers are both more evident
and more substantial. See, e. g., R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377.
Given the varied interpretations of the “decency and respect” criteria
urged by the parties, and the provision’s vague exhortation to “take
them into consideration,” it seems unlikely that § 954(d)(1) will signiﬁ-
cantly compromise First Amendment values.

The NEA’s enabling statute contemplates a number of indisputably
constitutional applications for both the “decency” and the “respect”
prongs of § 954(d)(1).
It is well established that “decency” is a permissi-
ble factor where “educational suitability” motivates its consideration.
See, e. g., Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v.
Pico, 457 U. S. 853, 871. And the statute already provides that the
agency must take “cultural diversity” into account. References to per-
missible applications would not alone be sufﬁcient to sustain the statute,