Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Proceed with NIH Grant Cancellations

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration to discard grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that are associated with issues such as gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). In a closely split decision of 5-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett partially aligning with the majority and Chief Justice John Roberts siding with those dissenting, the court lifted a prior order from a lower court that had mandated the restoration of hundreds of canceled grants.

These cancellations stemmed from directives issued by the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH leadership in February, leading to the termination of funding for projects related to DEI and topics such as vaccine hesitancy and climate change. Following these actions, a coalition of 16 states and various research organizations contested the legality of these terminations in April, asserting they violated constitutional law and federal regulations governing agency practices.

A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled earlier that the cancellations were unlawful, instructing that the administration's directives be set aside. However, Justice Barrett concluded that the district court's order for restoration was beyond its jurisdiction and indicated that challenges regarding the legality of the agency’s guidance could be pursued in different courts.

The implications of these decisions are substantial, particularly as NIH is a leading entity in biomedical research funding with a budget of $47 billion. The recent directives have led to the cancellation of more than 1,700 grants, impacting numerous public universities and local entities across 16 states, which has resulted in layoffs and reduced student opportunities. Judge Young's ruling pointed out the lack of reasoned decision-making from NIH and dismissed the administration's claims that DEI-related studies promote discrimination as unfounded.

In response to the ruling, Solicitor General D. John Sauer sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, arguing for the necessity of halting lower court decisions that contradict the executive branch. Public health groups have cautioned that even temporary interruptions could jeopardize critical long-term projects already funded by Congress, inflicting severe impacts on essential biomedical research and public health advancements, especially for communities suffering from serious health conditions.