NIH grant funding restored

Judge rules grant terminations on the basis of DEI and gender identity are discriminatory and illegal

Normally we don’t use this newsletter for breaking news (although, if you’d like us to do more of that, please let us know in the comments below).

But this is a big one.

Moments ago, a federal judge in Massachusetts, a Reagan appointee, ruled in favor of our plaintiffs in their lawsuit¹ challenging the National Institute of Health (NIH) cuts based on, in the administration’s words, “gender identity” or “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (“DEI”).

In handing down his opinion, the judge was blunt:

I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this … I ask myself, how can this be?

He went on: “How have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”

This was an oral ruling from the bench, to be followed by a written ruling to come. We’ll share the text when available.

This ruling means more than just restored funding

The court ruled that NIH’s actions targeting research involving disfavored topics and populations were unlawful and lacked any clear guidance or scientific justification. This decision halts NIH’s unprecedented attempt to shut down critical biomedical research, and the ruling safeguards studies vital to diagnosing, preventing, and treating life-threatening diseases.

Importantly, the court also sought to prevent the NIH from politicizing research going forward. The ruling ensures that NIH follows its own procedures and evaluates proposals based on merit, not political pressure.

Accordingly, funding for essential research — like that being done by our plaintiffs — will be restored.

Read more: Faces of the NIH cuts.

Also note that this ruling has positive impacts even beyond the critical science funding restored. Per my colleague Kenneth Parreno, the cuts were not just discriminatory, they were an attack on the central principle that science (and science funding) should be a nonpartisan and apolitical affair:

The court’s ruling is a critical check on the dangerous politicization of science. By purging research funding based on ideology rather than evidence, the government didn’t just break the law; it sought to dictate what science is allowed to study and who gets to benefit. That’s not just an attack on researchers — it’s an attack on democracy itself. Today’s decision affirms that public institutions must serve the public interest, not political agendas.

This is far from the end of the effort to protect science, knowledge, and discovery from politicization by an autocratic agenda — the judge made clear that he was, for now, limiting his ruling to only the specific grants and applications listed by our clients.

But it’s a mighty strong start.

1. On April 2, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, Protect Democracy, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed this lawsuit challenging the abrupt cancellations on behalf of individual researchers, along with the American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and Ibis Reproductive Health. Also, joining as co-counsel is Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP.