In a 5-4 ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court has authorized the Trump administration to cancel numerous National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants linked to the Diversity Initiative.
This decision reverses part of a ruling from a judge in Boston, who deemed the cancellations illegal and had stalled the administration’s plans.
Of the justices, five were appointed by Republican presidents, siding with the administration.
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented along with the three justices appointed by Democrats.
This marks the 18th occasion that the Supreme Court has approved an emergency request, at least in part, during Trump’s second term.
Earlier this year, the NIH announced plans to terminate grants that do not align with President Trump’s priorities, particularly those associated with the Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
U.S. District Judge William Young, who was appointed by former President Reagan, halted these cuts in June following a lawsuit from health organizations and 16 Democratic attorneys general.
The administration’s legal team indicated that the judge’s ruling affects $783 million in canceled grants, which contradict the president’s policies. Court documents highlighted specific grants for topics like “Thai Buddhism and HIV stigma” and “controlled adolescence of transgender adolescents.”
After a panel from the First Circuit declined to invalidate Young’s order, the administration escalated the case to the Supreme Court.
It’s important to note that this decision isn’t final; the case might eventually be brought back to the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration contended that Young lacked the authority to intervene, arguing that it was a matter for U.S. federal claims court concerning a contract dispute.
The Justice Department alleged that the judge was defying the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling by not addressing the education grant cuts.
“The case isn’t over yet. The district court has ignored a significant decision by tracking opponents against the majority view of this court,” the Justice Department stated.
“This situation should ensure swift accountability.”
Democrats and health organizations sought to differentiate between various lawsuits, asserting that lower judges do have the authority to prevent NIH grant reductions.
“Federal applications are misrepresenting a lower court’s decision as disregarding established legal boundaries to impede routine agency actions. The actual scenario is quite the opposite,” the state remarked in documents submitted to the Supreme Court.
