Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 635.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

590

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS v. FINLEY

Scalia, J., concurring in judgment

Section 954(d)(1) merely adds some imprecise considera-
It does not,
tions to an already subjective selection process.
on its face, impermissibly infringe on First or Fifth Amend-
ment rights. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of
Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins,

concurring in the judgment.

“The operation was a success, but the patient died.”
What such a procedure is to medicine, the Court’s opinion in
It sustains the constitutionality of 20
this case is to law.
U. S. C. § 954(d)(1) by gutting it. The most avid congres-
sional opponents of the provision could not have asked for
more.
I write separately because, unlike the Court, I think
that § 954(d)(1) must be evaluated as written, rather than as
distorted by the agency it was meant to control. By its
terms, it establishes content- and viewpoint-based criteria
upon which grant applications are to be evaluated. And
that is perfectly constitutional.

I
The Statute Means What It Says

Section 954(d)(1) provides:

“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 pro-
cedures, the Chairperson shall ensure that—

“(1) artistic excellence and artistic merit are the crite-
ria by which applications are judged, taking into consid-
eration general standards of decency and respect for the
diverse beliefs and values of the American public.”