Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Cut Research Funding, Despite Dissent

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to proceed with cuts to research funding. The decision permits the administration to slash hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants as part of its effort to reduce federal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The court's ruling lifted a lower court's order that had blocked the cuts made by the National Institutes of Health.

The court's decision was split, with five justices supporting the administration's actions and four dissenting. While the administration can proceed with canceling grants, the court did maintain a block on the administration's anti-DEI directive for future funding, due to a key vote. This ruling represents another legal victory for the Trump administration.

The Justice Department argued that funding decisions should not be subject to judicial review and that efforts to promote DEI policies could potentially mask racial discrimination. The lawsuit addresses a portion of the NIH research projects that have been cut. The administration also challenged other instances where judges had blocked its funding cuts.

The Solicitor General argued that these cases should not be considered by judges, citing a previous Supreme Court decision. Five conservative justices agreed, with Justice Neil Gorsuch criticizing lower-court judges for not following earlier high court orders.

The plaintiffs, including Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argued that research grants are distinct from teacher-training contracts and should not be sent to the claims court. They contended that defunding studies mid-way through would disrupt research, damage collected data, and hinder scientific progress.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, criticizing the outcome and the court's use of the emergency appeals process. She compared the situation to the fictional game "Calvinball," suggesting a lack of fixed rules and a consistent pattern of the administration prevailing.

In a previous ruling, a U.S. District Judge had deemed the cancellations arbitrary and discriminatory. An appeals court had upheld this ruling.