Two groups of plaintiffs have submitted a request to the Supreme Court, urging it to sustain a ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts requiring the continuation of $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. These funds are tied to studies involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The groups argue that terminating the grants would result in the irreversible loss of scientific knowledge and public health benefits. Notably, a coalition of 16 states led by Massachusetts and a group represented by the American Public Health Association are involved in this legal battle. They contend that ceasing the funding would invalidate ongoing projects and result in significant setbacks in the fields of health and science. For a detailed account, see their opposition brief to the justices here.
This request follows a series of executive orders initiated by former President Donald Trump. The orders aimed to eliminate government programs related to DEI and instructed federal agencies to terminate related contracts and grants within 60 days. As a consequence, NIH, the world’s largest public source of biomedical research funding, terminated numerous grants linked to DEI-related studies, such as genetic risk factor research for colorectal cancer among Native Hawaiians and substance abuse research scholarships for Native American researchers. For more context on the executive orders, visit the order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”
U.S. District Judge William Young found that the grant terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by being unreasonable and unexplained. Young noted the lack of reasoned decision-making behind the abruptness of the terminations. The decision was contested by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who petitioned the Supreme Court to hold Young’s order after a prior dismissal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. More information on the government’s stance can be viewed here.
The groups of states and private plaintiffs argue that their case is distinct from a previous Supreme Court ruling allowing the Department of Education to halt payments for teacher-training grants. They assert that the directives in question, which led to the grant terminations, are independent of any specific grant and represent an arbitrary and capricious violation of the APA. They emphasize the lack of a substantive explanation by NIH for deeming certain studies as DEI. Further insights into their legal arguments can be found in the briefs submitted.
Ultimately, this case presents significant implications for the intersections of federal policy, scientific research funding, and DEI initiatives. For comprehensive coverage of this evolving legal situation, consult the original article on SCOTUSblog.