Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court made an important decision on Thursday that gave the Trump administration a temporary victory by letting it stop $783 million in research awards that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had already given out. The 5-4 ruling, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, partially delayed a federal trial judge’s order that had told the NIH to keep funding the awards.
The case, National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, is a key aspect of the Trump administration’s larger plan to cut federal funding for programs that deal with DEI, gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19, and climate change. William Young, a federal district court judge in Boston, had earlier decided that the NIH’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the awards to be restored.
The Supreme Court’s majority, on the other hand, said that the district court did not have the power to order the reinstatement of some funds. The finding, which was made in an unsigned order, was based on the idea that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims should handle disagreements over government contracts and payments, not a federal district court. The Supreme Court cited a similar legal argument in an earlier case that let the Trump administration stop a separate group of DEI-related funds.
The verdict is a procedural success for the administration, but it’s not a full gain. The Supreme Court upheld a crucial aspect of Judge Young’s ruling that prevents the NIH from utilizing its new guidance materials to revoke any forthcoming funding. This implies that the government can’t use its new rules to reduce more studies while the matter is still in court.
The plaintiffs in the complaint, which included research groups, states, and public health groups, told the Supreme Court that stopping the funding would have “irreparable consequences for scientific progress.” They said that the sudden cancellations will hold back important research by years, if not decades, and create “incalculable losses in public health and human life.”
The administration, backed by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, said that the government is “irreparably harmed when forced to pay out millions of dollars on discretionary grants,” with no guarantee of getting the money back.
The Supreme Court’s ruling lets the Trump administration go ahead with canceling the grants while the lower courts work out the details of the complaint. The case’s conclusion will have a big effect on how much money the federal government gives to science research in the US and how much control the executive branch and the courts have over one other.