In a decision that’s sent shockwaves through the nation’s scientific and academic communities, the Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in allowing the cancellation of nearly $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants. The grants, which supported projects on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as studies on gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, and the impacts of the pandemic, have become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the federal government’s role in funding socially conscious research.
The 5-4 ruling, handed down on August 21, 2025, swiftly overturned a lower court’s decision that had blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to pull the plug on the funding. According to NPR, the move followed instructions in February from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, who ordered the NIH to reevaluate all grants linked to DEI and related topics, arguing that many of these projects had outlived their “limited purpose.” The administration’s push was part of a broader campaign to roll back what it sees as politicized science within federal research agencies.
Unsurprisingly, the decision has not gone unchallenged. Sixteen states, a coalition of advocacy organizations, and numerous researchers quickly sued Kennedy and the NIH, contending that the termination of the grants was unconstitutional and lacked any reasoned basis. A federal district judge in Massachusetts initially agreed, lambasting the NIH for abandoning its tradition as an apolitical scientific body. Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, didn’t mince words during the hearing, declaring, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. Have we no shame?”
But the Supreme Court’s majority, led by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and joined in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, swept aside the lower court’s order. The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that the district court simply didn’t have the authority to order the government to restore the grants. Sauer pointed to a recent Supreme Court precedent involving the Department of Education, which found that such disputes belonged in the Court of Federal Claims, not district courts. “The district court’s order directs the NIH to continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the Administration’s priorities,” Sauer wrote in his application to the high court.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, rebuked the lower courts for, in his words, defying Supreme Court precedent. “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch wrote, referencing the Department of Education case as justification for the ruling.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a concurring opinion, acknowledged that while the policy behind the grant cuts was “probably against the law,” individual grant cancellations should still be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. Her nuanced stance left her as the only justice to side with both majorities in the split opinions—one upholding the administration’s authority to cancel grants, the other finding the underlying policy likely unlawful.
The dissent was equally passionate. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan, condemned the majority’s decision as a blow to the rule of law. In her blistering dissent, Jackson wrote, “In a broader sense, however, today’s ruling is of a piece with this Court’s recent tendencies. [R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints, the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible…This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: there are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.” The “Calvinball” reference, as The Guardian pointed out, alludes to the ever-changing rules of a fictional game from the “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip—suggesting the Court’s standards are just as malleable.
Reactions from the states and public health community were swift and pointed. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, speaking after the ruling, lamented, “Even though the Court did not dispute that the Trump Administration’s decision to cut critical medical and public health research is illegal, they ordered the recipients of that funding—hospitals, researchers, and the state—to jump through more hoops to get it back. All the while, our research institutions, economy, and residents who depend on this lifesaving medical research will suffer.” The American Public Health Association echoed these concerns, warning in a court filing that the administration’s actions failed to consider the “reliance interests at stake—namely, the impact to researchers’ career progression, the risk to human life, and the damage to the overall scientific endeavor and the body of public health.”
The controversy has also spilled over into academia’s highest echelons. Harvard University, facing its own freeze on nearly $3 billion in federal grants, has seized on the Supreme Court’s decision as a battleground for its April lawsuit against the administration. Trump administration lawyers, emboldened by the recent ruling, argued in a Saturday court filing that the district court lacks jurisdiction over Harvard’s case and that it should be transferred to the Court of Federal Claims. But Harvard’s legal team is digging in its heels, insisting that its claims—rooted in First Amendment rights and procedural violations—belong in district court. The university contends that it’s not just seeking restoration of lost funds, but also an injunction against future retaliatory grant cuts.
Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is overseeing Harvard’s lawsuit, has expressed skepticism about shifting the case out of her court. Harvard responded on Sunday with a forceful argument that its challenge targets the legality of the administration’s policies, not merely the monetary loss. The Supreme Court justices themselves were divided on these jurisdictional questions, with the majority allowing the grant cancellations to proceed but another group of five justices finding the underlying policy likely unlawful and in need of a stay.
Negotiations between Harvard and the White House have resumed, with reports suggesting the Trump administration is pushing for a settlement that could cost the university upwards of $500 million. If Harvard prevails in court, it stands to see billions in research funding restored, a lifeline for scientists and scholars struggling with tightened budgets and a recently increased endowment tax.
As the legal battles continue, the fate of critical medical research—and the careers of countless scientists—hangs in the balance. The Supreme Court’s decision has set a precedent that could reshape the landscape of federally funded research for years to come, raising urgent questions about the boundaries between politics, law, and the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
In the midst of legal wrangling and political posturing, one thing remains clear: the future of American research is now tied up in the courts, with no easy answers in sight.
