The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants, part of its broader campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the justices granted part of the administration’s emergency request to block a Massachusetts federal judge’s ruling that had halted the cuts. However, the Court also left intact another portion of the ruling that invalidated the administration’s policy guidance document, casting uncertainty on how the cuts may be enforced in the long term.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett provided the decisive vote, siding with the majority in concluding that challenges to terminated grants must be filed in the Court of Federal Claims rather than district courts. Still, Barrett emphasized that the administration was not entitled to revive its invalidated policy guidance.
The NIH, which channels billions of federal dollars into medical research at universities, hospitals, and laboratories, had reviewed thousands of grants under Trump’s directive. More than 1,700 were canceled, including studies on HIV prevention and gender identity among teens.
Sixteen states, led by Massachusetts, along with the American Public Health Association and other groups, challenged the cuts. U.S. District Judge William Young ruled earlier this year that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by rushing implementation without proper legal process. He also found “pervasive discrimination” in how women’s health, LGBTQ+ issues, and racial disparities were treated in funding decisions.
The Massachusetts attorney general condemned the Supreme Court’s decision as “deeply disappointing,” warning that research institutions and patients relying on life-saving studies would face immediate harm.
The ruling reflects broader tensions over Trump’s renewed efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives, which he argues constitute reverse discrimination. His administration has targeted federal policies on transgender rights and medical research funding, drawing multiple legal challenges.
While the Court’s decision allows cuts to proceed, the justices remain divided on how far the administration can go in bypassing established procedures. Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s three liberal justices opposed the move, while Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the lower court for failing to heed earlier Supreme Court precedent.
The administration has frequently turned to the high court to defend its expansive use of executive power — and has largely prevailed.
READ MORE
Pediatrician Outlines 5 Key Shifts in Baby Care
More Americans Opt for Over-the-Counter Birth Control, Study Finds
FDA Delays Leave Families of Children With Rare Disease in Crisis
