In a closely divided decision, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to terminate $783 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that were connected to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The decision, which was made by a 5-4 vote, came in response to the administration’s request to pause a prior ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that had mandated the continuation of these grants. The decision also left in place another aspect of the judge’s ruling, nullifying certain internal NIH guidance documents that outlined the agency’s policy priorities.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett played a pivotal role, casting the deciding vote on two key issues. She aligned with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh to support the termination of the grants, but joined Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in maintaining the lower court’s ruling on the guidance documents. Justice Jackson voiced her criticism of the ruling, describing it as “Calvinball jurisprudence” in a nod to a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, implying disorder in the decision-making process.
The termination of the grants aligns with several executive orders launched by former President Trump, including one titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” Opponents of this decision argue that the abrupt end of the grants breaches both constitutional bounds and the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates federal agencies. U.S. District Judge William Young had agreed that the terminations violated this act, illustrating that NIH’s actions reflected a lack of reasonable justification, describing them as an “abrupt” and “robotic rollout.”
This decision arrives after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to halt Young’s order. Subsequently, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer turned to the Supreme Court for intervention, comparing the case with a similar prior decision in Department of Education v. California, backing the cessation of DEI-linked teacher-training grant payments. Sauer argued that such contracts should be contested in the Court of Federal Claims rather than district courts.
Justice Gorsuch, echoed by Kavanaugh, stressed that despite lower courts’ disagreements, they must abide by the Supreme Court’s decisions. Gorsuch highlighted that the Court’s previous decision in California was binding and should guide lower courts moving forward. Jackson countered, expressing concern that the decision to ban NIH funds, potentially hindering crucial scientific advancements, exploited a statute aimed at addressing unreasonable agency decision-making.
For a detailed account of the Supreme Court’s decision and its implications, visit SCOTUSblog.