Supreme Court Approves Cancellation of NIH Grants Linked to Diversity
The Supreme Court of the United States has authorized the Trump administration to cancel research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as well as gender identity. In a narrow 5-4 decision on October 5, 2023, the court lifted a lower court’s order that had mandated the restoration of hundreds of these grants, which had previously been terminated by the administration.
The ruling allows the administration to withdraw funding based on its policy priorities, particularly since President Trump resumed office for a second term. The administration has instructed federal agencies to cancel grants and contracts associated with DEI initiatives and to ensure that federal funds are not allocated to programs focused on gender identity.
Background and Legal Challenges
The controversy stems from a series of directives issued in February by the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH, which led to the cancellation of grants connected to DEI and gender identity, including research on vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19, and climate change. Overall, more than 1,700 grants were rescinded across the country, affecting over 800 awarded to public universities, state entities, and local governments in 16 states that contested the cancellations.
Attorneys representing Democratic state attorneys general argued that the abrupt termination of these grants forced universities to lay off employees, reduce student enrollment, and retract admission offers. The plaintiffs filed a legal challenge in April, contending that the grant cancellations violated both the Constitution and federal laws governing agency rulemaking.
In June, a federal judge in Massachusetts, William Young, ruled that the terminations were unlawful, criticizing the NIH for lacking “reasoned decision-making” in its approach. Young noted, “not a shred of evidence” supported the administration’s claims that DEI studies contributed to discrimination based on race and other protected characteristics.
Implications of the Supreme Court Decision
Following the lower court’s ruling, the Trump administration sought emergency relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, which declined to pause the district court’s decision. Solicitor General D. John Sauer then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that lower courts should not override the executive branch’s policy decisions.
Sauer underscored the importance of maintaining judicial boundaries, stating that the system should not devolve into a situation where individual district judges impose their own policy judgments over those of the executive branch. He referenced a prior Supreme Court order that allowed the Department of Education to stop grants that funded DEI-related initiatives.
Public health organizations have raised alarms over the potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision. They argue that even a temporary suspension of the district court’s ruling could jeopardize crucial multiyear projects that have already received congressional funding. The groups emphasized that halting these grants could have dire implications for public health, delaying essential advancements in biomedical research.
The ongoing legal battle highlights the tension between federal policy directives and the priorities of research institutions, particularly in fields that address pressing public health issues. As the case progresses in lower courts, the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling will continue to unfold, impacting research efforts across the country.
This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.
