The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a divided ruling allowing the Trump administration to proceed with cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health research grants while blocking some aspects of the government’s anti-diversity policies.
In a 5-4 split decision, the Court partially granted the government’s emergency request to stay a lower court’s order that had required NIH to restore terminated grants. The Court ruled that challenges to the actual grant terminations should be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rather than federal district court, citing jurisdictional concerns under the Tucker Act.
However, in a separate 5-4 vote on a different aspect of the case, the Court upheld a district court’s ruling that struck down NIH’s internal guidance documents implementing the administration’s policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett cast the decisive vote in both parts of the split decision.
The dispute arose after the Trump administration issued executive orders in February 2025 directing federal agencies to terminate funding for research related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), gender identity, and COVID-19. Following these directives, NIH canceled thousands of grants, including research on suicide prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer’s disease, and cardiovascular disease.
Two groups of plaintiffs – including individual researchers, the American Public Health Association, labor unions, and 16 Democratic-led states – challenged the terminations in federal court. They argued the mass cancellations violated the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional protections.
U.S. District Judge William Young of Massachusetts had ruled in June that the grant terminations were “arbitrary and capricious” and ordered NIH to restore the funding. Judge Young, a Reagan appointee, used unusually strong language in condemning the cuts, stating, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.”
He characterized the cuts as representing “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”
The Court’s liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – joined Chief Justice John Roberts in wanting to deny the government’s application entirely. They argued that the district court had proper jurisdiction to handle both the policy challenges and grant termination claims together.
The conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – would have granted the government’s request in full. They contended that all aspects of the case belonged in the Court of Federal Claims.
Justice Barrett’s concurring opinion explained her reasoning for the split approach, arguing that while challenges to agency guidance can proceed in district court, claims for monetary relief from grant terminations belong in the specialized federal claims court.
The Association of American Medical Colleges wrote a response to the ruling.
“Make no mistake: This was a decision critical to the future of the nation, and the Supreme Court made the wrong choice. History will look upon these mass National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grant terminations with shame. The Court has turned a blind eye to this grievous attack on science and medicine, and we call upon Congress to take action to restore the rule of law at NIH.”
The Court’s ruling forces researchers into bureaucratic red tape. If scientists want to challenge the government’s decision to cut their grants, they must now fight on two fronts: filing one lawsuit in federal district court to attack the policy itself, and another in the specialized Court of Federal Claims to actually get their money back.
The decision follows the Court’s earlier ruling in Department of Ed. v. California, which created similar hurdles for education grant challenges. Legal experts warn that this one-two punch is making it much harder for researchers and institutions to successfully fight back when the government arbitrarily pulls their funding.
The case will wind its way through the appeals process, and could eventually land back at the Supreme Court if the losing side petitions for review.
