Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Approval to Cancel NIH Grants

The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court's approval to cancel numerous grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health. These grants were related to topics such as gender identity and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court's ruling. The lower court had mandated the NIH to reinstate the grants and continue disbursing approximately $783 million in funding. The administration had previously determined that these grants did not align with its policy goals.

The grant cancellations stemmed from executive orders issued by Mr. Trump shortly after he returned to office. These orders instructed federal agencies to terminate awards and contracts associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as research and programs related to gender identity.

Following the administration's decision, the NIH began terminating grants in February. In April, a coalition of sixteen states, along with research and advocacy groups, a union, and individual researchers, initiated legal challenges against the cancellations. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the NIH from terminating any further grants and to reinstate those that had already been canceled.

The district court sided with the research entities after a bench trial, concluding that the NIH's grant termination process lacked "reasoned decision-making." The court invalidated the challenged directives. The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, which declined to halt the district court's decision.

In its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, the administration argued that its request offered an opportunity to prevent lower courts from disregarding its decisions. Sauer referenced a previous Supreme Court order that allowed the Department of Education to cancel grants related to DEI initiatives. The high court indicated that the administration was likely to succeed in demonstrating that the lower court in that case lacked the authority to order the payment of funds under federal law.

The solicitor general emphasized that the judicial system should not allow individual district judges to prioritize their own policy preferences over those of the Executive Branch or their own legal interpretations over those of the Supreme Court.