The Supreme Court issued a convoluted ruling that allows the Trump administration to cancel NIH grants, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting and accusing the Court of ensuring the administration always wins. This decision involves a jurisdictional split that delays relief for grant recipients, potentially halting critical health research.
Who: The key figures are Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who authored a partial dissent, and the other Supreme Court justices, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett who cast the deciding vote. The plaintiffs are recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, and the defendant is the Trump administration.
What: The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the cancellation of NIH grants by the Trump administration, which targeted research related to diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), gender identity, or COVID-19. The ruling is complex, with multiple opinions, and ultimately allows the administration to withhold funding while leaving some legal challenges open.
When: The ruling was handed down late on Thursday, August 21, 2025, as reported in news articles published that day and the following morning.
Where: The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C., affecting grant recipients nationwide.
Why: The Trump administration canceled these grants based on executive orders aimed at eliminating funding for projects it deemed objectionable, such as those promoting DEI or gender ideology. The district court had previously ruled the policy arbitrary and capricious, but the Supreme Court’s decision focuses on jurisdictional issues rather than the merits.
How: The Court was deeply divided, with a 5-4 split on various aspects. Justice Barrett’s opinion controls, requiring that challenges to the policy’s legality be heard in district court, while claims for monetary relief must go to the Court of Federal Claims. This creates a procedural maze that delays any resolution.
Impact: Immediate consequences include the potential loss of over $783 million in funding, forcing researchers to euthanize animal subjects, terminate clinical trials, and close community health clinics. This jeopardizes studies on suicide prevention, HIV, Alzheimer’s, and cardiovascular disease.
What’s next: The litigation is expected to drag on for years, with plaintiffs facing statute of limitations issues in the claims court. The ruling sets a precedent for how similar cases might be handled, emphasizing procedural hurdles over substantive justice.