...
By Jenna Sundel
News Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on federal research funding lobs a "grenade" without evaluating the impact of the ruling.
"The Court also lobs this grenade without evaluating Congress' intent or the profound legal and practical consequences of this ruling," Jackson said. "Stated simply: With potentially life-saving scientific advancements on the line, the Court turns a nearly century-old statute aimed at remedying unreasoned agency decision making into a gauntlet rather than a refuge."
The Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday to lift a lower court's order blocking cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. The ruling issues a stay on the lower court's decision to vacate various research grants.Jackson was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent.
Read More
Supreme Court Faces Decisions on Marijuana8 min read
Trump Administration’s Use of Travel Ban Dealt Blow from Judge3 min read
Amy Coney Barrett Offers Some Advice to Judges3 min read
...
Why It Matters
The NIH cut grant funding allegedly in response to President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.
District Judge William Young said in June that the agency's decision was "illegal" and "void."
"I've sat on this bench now for 40 years. I've never seen government racial discrimination like this," Young said in court.
What To Know
The Supreme Court's decision allows the administration to proceed with planned grant terminations while leaving in place restrictions on the agency's guidance for future funding decisions.
The lower court's order blocked $783 million worth of funding cuts.
Plaintiffs argued that defunding studies halts research and hurts the potential for scientific breakthroughs.
The Justice Department has said that agency funding decisions should not be "subject to judicial second-guessing."
Despite the ruling, a related lawsuit in which the American Public Health Association, United Auto Workers Union and others allege that the NIH unlawfully issued directives leading to the termination of grants remains unresolved. An appeal of the district court's ruling has been submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
What People Are Saying
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part: "The approach the Court adopts today [which, again, no party advocated for] neither coheres legally nor operates practically. So, unfortunately, this newest entry in the Court's quest to make way for the Executive Branch has real consequences, for the law and for the public."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part: "Finally, the harms and equities are weighty on both sides. But in my view, they tilt toward the Government because plaintiffs have not represented that they would return the grant money if the Government were to ultimately prevail in the merits litigation."
What Happens Next
The stay issued by the Supreme Court will be terminated if the appeals court declines to hear the case or after a judgment is issued.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines