The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court to authorize the cancellation of numerous grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), citing that these grants were associated with issues such as gender identity and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that a recent lower court ruling mandating the reinstatement of these funds and the continuation of approximately $783 million in awards should be put on hold.
The administration’s decision to terminate the grants stems from executive orders issued by Trump shortly after his return to office, which instructed federal agencies to eliminate awards and contracts linked to DEI and gender identity research. The NIH started to discontinue these grants in February, prompting 16 states, alongside various research and advocacy groups, to file lawsuits in response to the cancellations. These plaintiffs sought court intervention to prevent the NIH from revoking grants and demanded the restoration of already canceled funds.
In a recent ruling, a federal district court in Massachusetts favored the plaintiffs, determining that the NIH lacked “reasoned decision-making” in its approach to terminating the grants. U.S. District Judge William Young concluded that the agency acted without proper judgment, leading to the dismissal of the challenged directives.
Following this ruling, the Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit for a pause on the district court’s decision, which was denied. In its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, Sauer emphasized the need to prevent lower courts from undermining executive branch authority.
Sauer also referenced a prior Supreme Court order that allowed the Department of Education to negate funding for certain DEI initiatives, indicating the administration’s confidence in its position regarding the jurisdiction of federal district courts in such matters. He asserted that the judicial system should not permit lower court judges to impose their policy preferences over those of the Executive Branch or the Supreme Court.
This situation highlights the ongoing tension between federal policies and judicial oversight, particularly regarding issues of social policy and governmental funding. Stakeholders on both sides of the debate remain highly engaged, as the outcome could set significant precedents for future governmental and judicial interactions.