A closely split Court lets the administration pause hundreds of grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion—fueling a high-stakes fight over science and law.
The Supreme Court’s 5–4 ruling allows the Trump administration to halt $783 million in National Institutes of Health grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion. By partially lifting a district court’s injunction, the order green-lights immediate pauses on funding for hundreds of projects studying health disparities, LGBTQ issues, and women’s health. Scientists warn these cuts threaten ongoing trials, erode community trust, and slow progress against diseases like Alzheimer’s and HIV.
What the Supreme Court Did
On August 21, 2025, the Court issued a per curiam order (Docket 25A103), granting in part the government’s emergency application to stay a lower-court injunction. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett voted to let NIH proceed with the terminations. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented, warning that the action was “arbitrary and discriminatory” and risked “irreparable harm to scientific research and public health.”
The Lower-Court Ruling That Was Partially Overturned
U.S. District Judge William G. Young had blocked NIH’s cuts, finding them “void and illegal” under the Administrative Procedure Act. He criticized the terminations as “pervasive racial discrimination” and asked, “Have we no shame?” Judge Young warned that halting equity-focused studies would damage long-term datasets and halt vital community-based research.
How Much Is at Stake—and Which Grants Are Affected
About $783 million in DEI-linked grants were targeted. Affected research includes studies on dementia in minority populations at the University of Michigan, LGBTQ and transgender health projects, and women’s health programs addressing gender gaps in maternal care. Many awards were peer-reviewed and already underway, meaning staff layoffs and data loss loom if funding remains suspended.
The Administration’s Argument: Agency Discretion Over Budgets
The Justice Department argued that NIH funding decisions are unreviewable under the APA’s §701(a)(2), citing Heckler v. Chaney on nonenforcement and Lincoln v. Vigil on lump-sum appropriations. The government maintains that budgetary and termination choices fall squarely within agency discretion. Opponents counter that NIH’s blanket cuts, devoid of reasoned explanation, violate the APA’s prohibition on arbitrary and capricious actions as clarified in Department of Commerce v. New York and DHS v. Regents.
What This Means for Labs, Patients, and Public Health
Interrupted grants can destroy long-term studies, as incomplete data cannot reliably track disease progression or treatment outcomes. Community partners may withdraw if projects end abruptly, stalling efforts to recruit underrepresented populations. Delays in equity-focused research risk widening health gaps, leaving vulnerable groups without tailored interventions.
Key Definitions for Quick Clarity
DEI-linked grants are awards explicitly investigating disparities or equity outcomes—such as racial gaps in Alzheimer’s research or access barriers in cancer screenings. The emergency “shadow docket” refers to the Supreme Court’s expedited, summary process for urgent applications, often yielding brief, unsigned orders.
The Legal Fight Ahead
Courts will now examine whether NIH’s terminations truly escape review and if the agency offered any coherent rationale. Plaintiffs must show “law to apply” under Heckler and prove that NIH’s actions lacked the reasoned decision-making demanded by the APA. Equal-protection concerns could arise if the cuts disproportionately target studies of protected groups.
Reactions From the Research Community
Scientific bodies like the AAAS decried the ruling, warning of “irreparable harm” to public health and innovation. The AAMC called the cuts a “setback for equity in medicine,” noting that many projects aim to close critical care gaps. Universities report scrambling to secure bridge funding and preserve staff positions.
What You Can Do
Researchers should document project disruptions, noting data losses and community impacts for potential use in court or congressional inquiries. Advocates can press lawmakers to demand transparency on which grants were halted and why. Patients and study volunteers should stay in touch with research teams to learn about alternate support options.
Counterarguments, Addressed Fairly
Proponents argue DEI programs are outside NIH’s core mission and politicize science. Yet NIH’s mandate includes improving health for all Americans, which inherently covers addressing disparities. Claims of merit-based purity overlook the rigorous peer review that underpins most affected grants. While agencies follow elected leadership, they must still adhere to lawful, non-discriminatory procedures.
By allowing a pause on $783 million in DEI-linked NIH grants, the Supreme Court has heightened a fraught debate over agency power, judicial oversight, and the role of equity in science. With projects, patients, and public health hanging in the balance, Congress, courts, and the research community must demand clarity, safeguard ongoing studies, and ensure that critical health disparities research endures beyond political shifts.
Take action by contacting your representatives, supporting affected research centers, and following developments in Docket 25A103. Public health depends on fair, evidence-based funding.
Sources and Further Reading
The Supreme Court’s order (Aug. 21, 2025) at supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/082125zor_f204.pdf; AP via ABC News; Reuters; SCOTUSblog; STAT News; Science (AAAS); New York Times; ACLU press materials.
