The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can move forward with terminating over $783 million in NIH research grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
In a 5–4 ruling, the justices permitted the National Institutes of Health to move forward with terminating existing grants that had already been canceled. However, the court blocked enforcement of new DEI-related guidance rules going forward.
The unsigned order reversed lower court decisions that halted Trump’s executive action and ordered the canceled grants to be reinstated. The case now heads for further review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The ruling was split. Four justices wanted to uphold the lower court entirely. Four others wanted the lower ruling stayed completely. Justice Amy Coney Barrett cast the deciding vote.
Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote that the district judge who initially blocked the policy had authority over the guidance documents but not the already-terminated grants.
“As today’s order states, the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to the grant terminations, which belong in the Court of Federal Claims,” Barrett wrote. “In my view, however, the government is not entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance documents.”
The case stems from a Trump executive order to eliminate DEI programs across federal agencies. NIH responded by canceling over 700 research grants. Public estimates place the value of the cuts at over $800 million.
Among the canceled projects were studies on health disparities in LGBTQ communities, maternal health outcomes linked to sexual orientation, and the impact of social networks on older “sexual and gender minorities” in the South.
The Justice Department defended the move in a July 24 court filing. It argued that the injunction “forces NIH to continue funding projects inconsistent with agency priorities” and “intrudes on NIH’s core discretion to decide how best to allocate limited research funds.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, slammed the lower court for defying precedent. He noted that a prior Supreme Court ruling involving the Education Department held that such grant termination cases belong in the Court of Federal Claims. “That was an error,” Gorsuch said. “A lower court ought not invoke the ‘persuasive authority’ of a dissent or a repudiated court of appeals decision to reach a different conclusion.”
Chief Justice John Roberts disagreed. He sided with the court’s three liberal justices. Roberts argued that if the judge had jurisdiction over the DEI policy, he also had jurisdiction over the terminated grants. “The government has neither contended that the terminations did not result from the directives, nor contested the district court’s conclusion that the directives constituted final agency action,” Roberts wrote.
Democrat-led states, including Massachusetts, filed briefs opposing Trump’s actions. They said the grant cuts were driven by ideology, not science. “Patients should not be collateral damage in a political fight,” they wrote.
The case is expected to return to the lower courts. Further challenges may again reach the Supreme Court in the coming months.