The United States Supreme Court on Thursday, 21 August 2025, ruled in a 5-4 decision to allow the second Trump administration to proceed with canceling approximately USD 783 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health. This action had previously been blocked by a ruling made in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Note that the ruling only represents a portion of the broader agenda of the administration. Filings showed that the White House has targeted nearly USD 12 billion in NIH-funded projects for termination. The grants identified include studies viewed by Trump administration officials as aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI initiatives.
The majority decision lifted the injunction made by U.S. District Judge William Young. His ruling earlier described the cancellations as arbitrary and discriminatory. In a hearing before the district court, Judge Young declared, “I have never seen government racial discrimination like this,” underscoring the seriousness of his initial intervention.
Despite allowing the cancellations, the Supreme Court declined to provide administration guidance for evaluating future awards, leaving that aspect blocked. This means the NIH may immediately cancel the identified projects, but long-term policy changes surrounding future grants remain subject to judicial review and ongoing litigation in multiple courts.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the 3 liberal justices in dissent, emphasizing that the injunction should have remained intact. Their position aligned with arguments from plaintiffs, including 16 Democratic state attorneys general, who warned of irreparable harm to ongoing studies, public health, and scientific careers should the cancellations proceed unchecked.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that federal courts should not second-guess agency funding decisions. He cited precedent suggesting such disputes belong in claims courts. The Justice Department further asserted that some DEI practices may conceal discrimination, a justification underlying its realignment of NIH funding priorities.
Plaintiffs argued that halting research midstream risks destroying valuable longitudinal data, derailing clinical trials, and dismantling years of investment. Their filings described the cuts as inflicting “incalculable losses in public health and human life,” stressing that disruption of ongoing projects could permanently harm American scientific competitiveness.
The immediate impact includes the cancellation of hundreds of grants supporting universities, laboratories, and medical centers. Researchers have repeatedly warned that interrupted studies will cause layoffs, lost data sets, and abandoned experiments, discouraging early-career scientists and weakening the role of the United States in global innovation.
Broader significance extends beyond NIH. The decision signals the willingness of the Supreme Court to permit sweeping administrative reversals tied to political agendas. While litigation continues in lower courts, the ruling suggests that federal funding priorities can be reshaped dramatically by presidential directives and executive policymaking.