American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health
1:25-cv-10787
D. Mass.May 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (American Public Health Association, IBIS Reproductive Health, UAW, and several individual researchers) sued NIH and related federal health officials, alleging unlawful termination or delay of federal grant funding.
- Suit was prompted by 2025 Executive Orders issued by President Trump, which directed the end of all federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and certain research deemed contrary to the administration’s new priorities, including those relating to "gender ideology" and other disfavored topics.
- NIH issued agency guidance terminating, restricting, or deprioritizing funding for grants involving DEI, certain foreign partners, and other now-prohibited subject areas, using largely template language referring to agency priorities.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the legality of these terminations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), constitutional grounds (including Due Process and Separation of Powers), and sought a preliminary injunction.
- The court consolidated the preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, and construed Defendants' opposition as a motion to dismiss.
- The court ruled on standing, jurisdiction, and the sufficiency of APA, constitutional, and related claims at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Associational) | APHA/UAW have direct mission and member impact due to funding disruption; can sue for members | UAW's interests are not germane; too much reliance on member affidavits | Plaintiffs have standing, including UAW |
| APA Arbitrary & Capricious/Reasoned Explanation | Terminations lacked reasoned explanation; relied on vague, political, and boilerplate language | Terminations consistent with grant terms; explanations sufficient and within agency discretion | Denied dismissal; plausible claim alleged |
| Void-for-Vagueness (Due Process) | Termination criteria were unconstitutionally vague and undefined | Doctrine does not apply to government funding conditions; no protected liberty or property interest alleged | Dismissed Counts IV & VI (no facial vagueness) |
| Statutory Mandate/Excess of Authority | NIH actions thwarted statutory Research mandates by halting targeted funding (e.g., minority health, DEI-related research) | NIH has broad discretion; six-year strategic plan compliance suffices | Denied dismissal; plausible statutory claim |
| Separation of Powers | NIH unlawfully usurped/constrained by Executive, undermining congressional mandates | Executive acted within broad regulatory/statutory authority | Dismissed separation of powers claim (Count VII) |
| Delay/Unlawfully Withheld Agency Action | NIH withheld decisions on submitted grants, violating mandatory duty to decide/evaluate applications | NIH has discretion over timing/process, and has resumed normal activity | Denied dismissal; factual issue remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (clarifies judicial review of agency actions and interpretive standards under the APA)
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Department of Homeland Sec., 591 U.S. 1 (scope of APA review, reasoned decision making, and reviewing agency explanations)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (explains "arbitrary and capricious" standard under APA §706)
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (addresses circumstances where agency action is committed to agency discretion and limits judicial review)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (sets standard for associational standing for organizations to sue on behalf of members)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (sets high bar for courts to compel agency action under §706(1) - requires discrete, mandatory duty)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (sets "plausibility" pleading standard for federal complaints)
- United States v. Lahey Clinic Hosp., Inc., 399 F.3d 1 (First Circuit guidance on separation of powers claims)
- Michigan v. Environmental Prot. Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (importance of reasoned explanation in agency decisions)