Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 622.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 569 (1998)

577

Opinion of the Court

The NEA has not promulgated any ofﬁcial interpretation
of the provision, but in December 1990, the Council unani-
mously adopted a resolution to implement § 954(d)(1) merely
by ensuring that the members of the advisory panels that
conduct the initial review of grant applications represent
geographic, ethnic, and esthetic diversity. See Minutes of
the Dec. 1990 Retreat of the National Council on the Arts,
reprinted in App. 12–13; Transcript of the Dec. 1990 Retreat
of the National Council on the Arts, reprinted in id., at 32–
33.
John Frohnmayer, then Chairperson of the NEA, also
declared that he would “count on [the] procedures” ensuring
diverse membership on the peer review panels to fulﬁll Con-
gress’ mandate. See id., at 40.

B

The four individual respondents in this case, Karen Finley,
John Fleck, Holly Hughes, and Tim Miller, are performance
artists who applied for NEA grants before § 954(d)(1) was
enacted. An advisory panel recommended approval of re-
spondents’ projects, both initially and after receiving Frohn-
mayer’s request to reconsider three of the applications. A
majority of the Council subsequently recommended disap-
proval, and in June 1990, the NEA informed respondents
that they had been denied funding. Respondents ﬁled suit,
alleging that the NEA had violated their First Amendment
rights by rejecting the applications on political grounds, had
failed to follow statutory procedures by basing the denial on
criteria other than those set forth in the NEA’s enabling
statute, and had breached the conﬁdentiality of their grant
applications through the release of quotations to the press,
in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. § 552(a).
Respondents sought restoration of the recommended grants
or reconsideration of their applications, as well as damages
for the alleged Privacy Act violations. When Congress
enacted § 954(d)(1), respondents, now joined by the National
Association of Artists’ Organizations (NAAO), amended