Supreme Court Allows NIH Grant Terminations to Proceed
▼ Summary
– The Trump Administration cancelled grants for pandemic preparation, scientific workforce diversity, and minority health initiatives, which were challenged in court.
– A District of Massachusetts ruling found the terminations violated statutes against arbitrary policies, blocking implementation and restoring funding.
– The Supreme Court upheld the stay against the policy but ruled funding disputes must be heard in a different court, leaving researchers defunded.
– The decision involved a split among Justices, with Thomas and Alito supporting lifting the stay without explanation, while Gorsuch and Kavanaugh provided separate reasoning.
– Gorsuch argued grant funding is like a contract requiring cases to go to the Court of Federal Claims, referencing precedent and expressing disappointment over reiterating conclusions.
The Supreme Court has issued a complex ruling that allows certain National Institutes of Health grant terminations to proceed, while leaving in place a lower court’s finding that the government acted unlawfully in its initial cancellation efforts. The decision stems from a series of controversial grant terminations initiated early in the previous administration, which targeted research areas including pandemic readiness, scientific workforce diversity, and minority health initiatives.
Researchers and their supporting institutions successfully challenged those actions in federal court, arguing that the government’s approach was arbitrary and capricious, a violation of administrative law. A district judge agreed, blocking the policy and reinstating funding through a preliminary injunction. That injunction remained in effect throughout the appeals process, which ultimately reached the nation’s highest court.
In a fractured opinion released Thursday, the Court declined to fully lift the stay, meaning the underlying ruling against the government’s termination policy remains valid. However, a narrow majority determined that claims for monetary damages must be heard in a different judicial forum, the Court of Federal Claims, rather than as part of the same injunction. As a result, scientists whose grants were canceled under the now-invalidated policy will not see their funding restored through this particular legal avenue.
The ruling reflects significant disagreement among the justices, resulting in three separate written opinions. Justices Thomas and Alito voted to lift the stay entirely but did not explain their reasoning. Justice Gorsuch, joined in part by Justice Kavanaugh, argued that funding agreements function similarly to contracts with the government, and therefore disputes over monetary relief belong in the claims court. Kavanaugh also filed a separate concurrence.
Gorsuch’s opinion notably invoked a recent precedent, Department of Education v. California, suggesting that the legal pathway for such financial claims had already been clearly established. He expressed frustration that the current case required restating what he viewed as settled law, adding pointedly that the Court’s precedents “cannot be so easily circumvented.” This remark carries particular weight given Gorsuch’s own record of overturning prior decisions during his tenure.
While the ruling does not endorse the government’s original termination efforts, it limits the practical relief available to affected researchers through this specific lawsuit. The outcome underscores the procedural complexities that can influence how policy challenges unfold within the judicial system, even when plaintiffs succeed on the merits of their case.
(Source: Ars Technica)
