Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts

Court
D.R.I.
Docket number
1:25-cv-00079
Filed
Terminated
Last filing
Assigned judge
William E Smith
Referred judge
Patricia A. Sullivan
Nature of suit
440 Civil Rights: Other
Cause
05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Jurisdiction
U.S. Government Defendant
Jury demand
None
Case
Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts
Source
Docket on CourtListener(opens another site)

Docket entries

The entries the archive holds for this docket. For the full docket, use the link above.

Clear
Docket entries
No.DateDescriptionDocument
No description
No description
TEXT ORDER re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION to Expedite, MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants shall file their response by 3/14/2025, and Plaintiffs shall file their reply by 3/17/25. So Ordered by Senior District Judge William E Smith on 3/7/2025. (Simoncelli, Michael)
NOTICE of Hearing on 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: Motion Hearing set for 3/18/2025 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Senior District Judge William E Smith. (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
No description
TEXT ORDER re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION to Expedite, MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants shall file their response by 2:00 PM on 3/21/2025, and Plaintiffs shall file their reply by 3/25/25. So Ordered by Senior District Judge William E Smith on 3/11/2025. (Simoncelli, Michael)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: Motion Hearing reset for 3/27/2025 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Senior District Judge William E Smith. (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
NOTICE of Hearing: Video Chambers Conference set for 3/18/2025 at 11:00 AM before Senior District Judge William E. Smith. (Zoom Meeting ID/Passcode provided to counsel of record by email.) (Simoncelli, Michael)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior District Judge William E Smith: Zoom Chambers Conference held on 3/18/2025. Participants: V. Eidelman, S. Kim, and L. Yu for Plaintiffs; K. Bolan for the Defendants. (Zoom Video Conference at 11:05 AM.) (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
No description
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior District Judge William E Smith: Motion Hearing held on 3/27/2025 re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Counsel present: V. Eidelman, S. Kim, L. Yu, and L. Labinger for Plaintiffs; K. Bolan for Defendants. V. Eidelman and S. Kim argue their Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Court questions counsel throughout; K. Bolan argues objection to Motion; Court questions counsel throughout; V. Eidelman and S. Kim present rebuttal; Court questions counsel throughout. Court takes motion under advisement. Recess. (Court Reporter D. Veitch in Courtroom 3 at 10:05 AM.) (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
NOTICE of Hearing: Zoom Chambers Conference set for 4/17/2025 before Senior District Judge William E Smith. Zoom meeting ID/passcode provided to counsel of record by email. (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
NOTICE of Hearing: Zoom Chambers Conference rescheduled to 4/23/2025 at 02:00 PM before Senior District Judge William E Smith. Zoom Meeting ID/Passcode provided to counsel of record by email. (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
No description
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge William E Smith: Zoom Status Conference held on 4/23/2025. Participants: S. Kim, L. Yu, D. Cole, and L. Labinger for Plaintiffs; K. Bolan for Defendants. (Zoom Video Conference at 2:00 PM.) (Simoncelli, Michael)
NOTICE of Hearing:Zoom Status Conference set for 5/5/2025 at 02:00 PM before Senior Judge William E Smith. This is an attorneys-only conference, and Zoom ID/Passcode provided to counsel of record by email. (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
No description
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge William E. Smith: Status Conference held on 5/5/2025. Participants: V. Eidelman, S. Kim, L. Yu, and L. Labinger for Plaintiffs; K. Bolan for Defendants. Court to issue schedule re: filing of amended complaint and answer, discovery requests, and cross-motions for summary judgment. (Zoom Video Conference at 2:00 PM) (Simoncelli, Michael)
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by May 12, 2025, and Defendants to file their answer, along with the complete administrative record, by May 27, 2025. Plaintiffs to issue discovery requests to the Defendants by May 12, 2025; Defendants to file their objections to the discovery requests by May 19, 2025; and Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants' objections by May 27, 2025. The objections and responses shall be no longer than 5 pages. Plaintiffs to file their cross-motion for summary judgment by June 30, 2025; Defendants to file their cross-motion for summary judgment and their response to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment by July 18, 2025; Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment and response to Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment by August 1, 2025; and Defendants to file their reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment by August 8, 2025. So Ordered by Senior Judge William E. Smith on 5/5/2025. (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
TEXT ORDER denying in part and granting in part Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, Dkt. No. 17. The NEA's "explanation of its intended action to implement EO 14168," see generally, id. Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 17-1, suggests the Chair will treat a grant application's perceived promotion of "gender ideology," as defined by the EO, as either a disqualifying factor or a factor weighing against approval during the final stage of the application review process. That conclusion is not free from doubt, however, given some (potentially intentional) ambiguity. To address this, the Court will permit the limited discovery reflected in Plaintiffs' three requests for admission, and thus Defendants' Motion for Protective Order is denied in that respect. Although the Court recognizes there is a presumption against discovery in Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") cases, "supplementation of the record may be permissible where there is a 'failure to explain administrative action as to frustrate effective judicial review.'" Olsen v. United States, 414 F.3d 144, 155-56 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142-43 (1973)). Answers to the three simple questions posed by Plaintiffs in their requests for admission will facilitate effective judicial review. Answers to Plaintiffs' interrogatories, on the other hand, are not necessary for effective judicial review at this time. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order is therefore granted as to the interrogatories; however, if Defendants' answers to Plaintiffs' requests for admission fail to clarify matters, the Court may revisit this issue. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, Dkt. No. 17, is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' requests for admission and GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' interrogatories. Answers to the requests for admission must be filed by June 11, 2025, at 5:00 pm. So Ordered by Senior Judge William E. Smith on 6/4/2025. (Simoncelli, Michael)
No description
USCA Case Number 25-2113 for 36 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Mary Anne Carter, National Endowment for the Arts. (Hill, Cherelle)