...
By Jenna Sundel and Gabe Whisnant
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.
A federal judge in Massachusetts, William Young, has ruled that the Trump administration's decision to cut National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants—allegedly in response to executive orders targeting gender identity and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies—was "illegal" and "void."
In his ruling, Judge Young, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said he was reinstating grants that had been awarded to the organizations and Democratic-led states that had sued over the terminations, Reuters reported.
Why It Matters
Young is presiding over a non-jury trial involving two cases against the Trump administration over the funding cuts.
Read More
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs. Trump—Which Policies Americans Prefer4 min read
Jack Ciattarelli Within Striking Distance of Mikie Sherrill in N.J.—Poll5 min read
Australian Says He Was ‘Deported’ From US Because of His Writings7 min read
In one case, the American Public Health Association, United Auto Workers Union and others allege that the NIH unlawfully issued directives leading to the termination of grants. In a second case, a group of Democrat-led states accuses the NIH of unlawfully canceling research grants.
...
What To Know
Young accused the government of racial discrimination and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community in court on Monday, Bloomberg Law reported.
"This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community. That's what this is," Young said. "I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out."
Prior to the ruling, Young heard arguments on the case. He challenged the government's position that DEI initiatives contributed to unlawful discrimination.
"Affirmative action had various invidious calculus based upon race. I understand that. That's not a license to discriminate," Young said.
Young said he saw "no evidence" that supports the government's argument.
"Point me just anywhere in this record where it's pointed out that any particular grant or group of grants is being used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race. From what I can see, it's the reverse," Young said.
The judge added that it was "palpably clear" that the directives and terminated grants were "designed to frustrate, to stop research that may bear on the health" of LGBTQ+ individuals.
"That's appalling," Young said.
What People Are Saying
Judge William Young, in court on Monday: "I've sat on this bench now for 40 years. I've never seen government racial discrimination like this."
Kenneth Parreno, a Protect Democracy attorney arguing for plaintiffs on Monday: "What this is is a slap-dash, harried effort to rubber stamp an ideological purge."
What Happens Next
Young is expected to file a written opinion disclosing his ruling. Grants challenged in the case are expected to be reinstated, and Young suggested that he could issue a more sweeping decision as the case proceeds, according to Reuters.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Update 6/16/25, 4:01 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines