Smithsonian Institution: A Private Charity

---

The Smithsonian Institution, a revered public trust that safeguards America’s cultural and historical treasures, faces increasing scrutiny for its contradictory legal status. At the heart of the issue is its self-proclaimed "ideal ambiguity," a structure that positions it as both a private trust and a federally governed entity. This duality has led to legal inconsistencies that impact its accountability and constitutional obligations, as highlighted in artist Julian Raven’s ongoing litigation in 2017-CV-01240 TNM and 22-CV-2809 CRC.

A key passage from the Ideal Ambiguity chapter states:

"The Smithsonian Institution is most certainly not a part of the federal government. It is a trust instrumentality, established for the benefit of the American public and grounded in English common law traditions." – Smithsonian Chancellor

This statement underscores the Smithsonian's unique origins and operational independence, but it contradicts its reliance on $700 million in annual federal appropriations and governance by officials from all three branches of government. This hybrid model enables the Smithsonian to wield public authority while evading constitutional obligations—a central issue in Raven’s lawsuits.

1. 2017-CV-01240 TNM:
   
   • The court ruled that the Smithsonian qualifies as a federal entity, yet it denied Raven’s claims under the First Amendment, citing the government speech doctrine. This paradoxical ruling left unresolved whether the Smithsonian is accountable for constitutional violations.

1. 22-CV-2809 CRC:
   
   • In his ongoing case, Raven challenges the Smithsonian’s continued suppression of his speech, arguing that the institution’s reliance on the government speech doctrine violates his constitutional rights. Despite the Supreme Court’s clarification in Lindke v. Freed (2024) that public institutions performing governmental functions cannot avoid First Amendment scrutiny, the District Court has delayed issuing a ruling.

While the Smithsonian claims its independence, federal courts and Congressional actions suggest otherwise. This inconsistency undermines its accountability and invites constitutional challenges. The Smithsonian Chancellor himself acknowledged:

“The Smithsonian cannot and should not operate as an arm of the federal government, as its purpose is to serve the public, not governmental interests.”

The Smithsonian’s governance by members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches raises serious concerns about the separation of powers doctrine. Such overlap contradicts the Constitution’s intent to keep branches distinct and independent.

In Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court ruled that institutions using public authority cannot avoid First Amendment obligations. Raven’s case exemplifies the misuse of this doctrine, as the Smithsonian suppresses dissenting viewpoints while operating with taxpayer funding.

Julian Raven’s litigation highlights the urgent need to resolve the Smithsonian’s legal inconsistencies. Citizens, media, and lawmakers must push for:

• Transparency: Clarify the Smithsonian’s legal identity as either a private trust or a federal agency.
• Judicial Review: Encourage swift rulings on cases involving constitutional rights.
• Legislative Reform: Reform the Smithsonian’s governance structure to ensure accountability and compliance with constitutional principles.

The Smithsonian’s unresolved legal status affects not just Julian Raven but every American taxpayer who funds its operations. By addressing these contradictions, Congress and the courts can ensure that this cherished institution fulfills its mission without infringing on constitutional rights.

• Smithsonian Institution legal ambiguity
• Julian Raven First Amendment lawsuit
• Smithsonian taxpayer funding accountability
• Government speech doctrine misuse
• Separation of powers Smithsonian