Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 630.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

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

585

Opinion of the Court

§ 951(10). The agency expressly takes diversity into ac-
count, giving special consideration to “projects and produc-
tions . . . that reach, or reﬂect the culture of, a minority,
inner city, rural, or tribal community,” § 954(c)(4), as well
as projects that generally emphasize “cultural diversity,”
§ 954(c)(1). Respondents do not contend that the criteria in
§ 954(d)(1) are impermissibly applied when they may be justi-
ﬁed, as the statute contemplates, with respect to a project’s
intended audience.

We recognize, of course, that reference to these permissi-
ble applications would not alone be sufﬁcient to sustain the
statute against respondents’ First Amendment challenge.
But neither are we persuaded that, in other applications, the
language of § 954(d)(1) itself will give rise to the suppression
of protected expression. Any content-based considerations
that may be taken into account in the grant-making process
are a consequence of the nature of arts funding. The NEA
has limited resources, and it must deny the majority of the
grant applications that it receives, including many that pro-
pose “artistically excellent” projects. The agency may de-
cide to fund particular projects for a wide variety of reasons,
“such as the technical proﬁciency of the artist, the creativity
of the work, the anticipated public interest in or appreciation
of the work, the work’s contemporary relevance, its educa-
tional value, its suitability for or appeal to special audiences
(such as children or the disabled), its service to a rural or
isolated community, or even simply that the work could in-
crease public knowledge of an art form.” Brief for Petition-
ers 32. As the dissent below noted, it would be “impossible
to have a highly selective grant program without denying
money to a large amount of constitutionally protected ex-
pression.”
100 F. 3d, at 685 (opinion of Kleinfeld, J.). The
“very assumption” of the NEA is that grants will be awarded
according to the “artistic worth of competing applicants,”
and absolute neutrality is simply “inconceivable.” Advo-