145 S.Ct. 2658
U.S.2025Background
- The National Institutes of Health (NIH) terminated thousands of existing research grants pursuant to executive orders ending funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), gender identity, and COVID-19 related projects.
- Plaintiffs—groups of researchers, doctors, public health associations, and states—challenged the NIH guidance and grant terminations as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The District Court set aside the NIH directives and the resulting grant terminations, finding them arbitrary, capricious, and unlawfully discriminatory, ordering the restoration of grants.
- The First Circuit declined to stay the District Court’s order pending appeal, noting grave, irreparable scientific and public health harms if the decision was stayed.
- NIH and the federal government sought a stay from the Supreme Court, arguing that such claims properly belong in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, not in federal district court.
- The Supreme Court issued a divided order granting a partial stay: District Court judgments vacating grant terminations are stayed (pending further appeal), but judgments vacating the guidance documents themselves are not stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for challenging grant terminations | APA claim challenges arbitrary policy, not contract | Claims are for breach of contract, belong in CFC | Claims for terminations belong in CFC |
| District court's authority to vacate guidance | APA review of guidance proper in district court | Guidance challenge inseparable from contract claims | District court can vacate guidance |
| Remedy: Restoration of grant funding | Restoration flows from vacating unlawful policy | District court cannot order payment under APA | Vacatur of terminations (payment) stayed |
| Irreparable harm / equities in granting stay | Losses to research, public health, unrecoverable | Government cannot recoup funds if it later prevails | Partial stay; grant funding loss deemed irreparable for Gov |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Ed. v. California, 604 U.S. _ (2025) (district courts lack jurisdiction under APA to enforce payment under government contracts; such claims must go to Court of Federal Claims)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (distinguishes between claims for money damages and claims for specific relief such as reinstatement of benefits under the APA)
- United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307 (2011) (plaintiffs cannot pursue the same operative claim in both courts simultaneously)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992) (prevailing parties generally entitled to complete relief)
- United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969) (limitations on Claims Court’s ability to provide equitable relief)