Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 623.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

578

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS v. FINLEY

Opinion of the Court

their complaint to challenge the provision as void for vague-
ness and impermissibly viewpoint based. First Amended
Complaint ¶ 1.

The District Court denied the NEA’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings, 795 F. Supp. 1457, 1463–1468 (CD Cal.
1992), and, after discovery, the NEA agreed to settle the
individual respondents’ statutory and as-applied constitu-
tional claims by paying the artists the amount of the vetoed
grants, damages, and attorney’s fees. See Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement, 6 Record, Doc. No. 128, pp. 3–5.

The District Court then granted summary judgment in
favor of respondents on their facial constitutional challenge
to § 954(d)(1) and enjoined enforcement of the provision.
See 795 F. Supp., at 1476. The court rejected the argument
that the NEA could comply with § 954(d)(1) by structuring
the grant selection process to provide for diverse advisory
Id., at 1471. The provision, the court stated, “fails
panels.
adequately to notify applicants of what is required of them or
to circumscribe NEA discretion.”
Id., at 1472. Reasoning
that “the very nature of our pluralistic society is that there
are an inﬁnite number of values and beliefs, and correlatively,
there may be no national ‘general standards of decency,’ ”
the court concluded that § 954(d)(1) “cannot be given effect
consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s due process require-
Id., at 1471–1472 (citing Grayned v. City of Rock-
ment.”
ford, 408 U. S. 104, 108–109 (1972)). Drawing an analogy be-
tween arts funding and public universities, the court further
ruled that the First Amendment constrains the NEA’s
grant-making process, and that because § 954(d)(1) “clearly
reaches a substantial amount of protected speech,” it is
impermissibly overbroad on its face.
795 F. Supp., at 1476.
The Government did not seek a stay of the District Court’s
injunction, and consequently the NEA has not applied
§ 954(d)(1) since June 1992.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals afﬁrmed the Dis-
100 F. 3d 671 (CA9 1996). The major-

trict Court’s ruling.