Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 614.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

569

Syllabus

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS et al.
v. FINLEY et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit

No. 97–371. Argued March 31, 1998—Decided June 25, 1998

.

The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 vests
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) with substantial discretion
to award ﬁnancial grants to support the arts; it identiﬁes only the broad-
est funding priorities, including “artistic and cultural signiﬁcance, giving
emphasis to .
. creativity and cultural diversity,” “professional ex-
cellence,” and the encouragement of “public . . . education . . . and ap-
preciation of the arts.” See 20 U. S. C. §§ 954(c)(1)–(10). Applications
for NEA funding are initially reviewed by advisory panels of experts in
the relevant artistic ﬁeld. The panels report to the National Council
on the Arts (Council), which, in turn, advises the NEA Chairperson.
In 1989, controversial photographs that appeared in two NEA-funded
exhibits prompted public outcry over the agency’s grant-making proce-
dures. Congress reacted to the controversy by inserting an amend-
ment into the NEA’s 1990 reauthorization bill. The amendment became
§ 954(d)(1), which directs the Chairperson to ensure that “artistic excel-
lence and artistic merit are the criteria by which [grant] applications
are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and
respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.” The
NEA has not promulgated an ofﬁcial interpretation of the provision, but
the Council adopted a resolution to implement § 954(d)(1) by ensuring
that advisory panel members represent geographic, ethnic, and esthetic
diversity. The four individual respondents are performance artists who
applied for NEA grants before § 954(d)(1) was enacted. An advisory
panel recommended approval of each of their projects, but the Council
subsequently recommended disapproval, and funding was denied. They
ﬁled suit for restoration of the recommended grants or reconsideration
of their applications, asserting First Amendment and statutory claims.
When Congress enacted § 954(d)(1), respondents, now joined by the Na-
tional Association of Artists’ Organizations, amended their complaint to
challenge the provision as void for vagueness and impermissibly view-
point based. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor
of respondents on their facial constitutional challenge to § 954(d)(1).