State of New York v. National Science Foundation
1:25-cv-04452
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Sixteen states challenged recent National Science Foundation (NSF) changes that terminated certain grant awards due to new agency priorities, arguing these changes conflict with Congressional direction to increase STEM participation by women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities.
- Plaintiffs seek an injunction against the NSF’s Priority Directive, claiming it is contrary to statutory mandates and constitutional principles.
- The National Association of Scholars (NAS), an organization opposing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) preferences in higher education grants, moved to intervene, asserting its interest in defending merit-based grant review processes.
- NAS argued its interests diverge from both plaintiffs and defendants, particularly regarding constitutional issues related to Equal Protection.
- Both plaintiffs and defendants opposed NAS’s intervention, though defendants suggested NAS could participate as amicus curiae instead.
- The court denied NAS’s motion to intervene of right and for permissive intervention but granted NAS leave to file an amicus brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention of right (Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)) | NAS’s interests are not adequately protected by existing parties | Defendants’ interests align with NAS; no divergence warranting intervention | NAS’s interests adequately represented; intervention of right denied |
| Permissive intervention (Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)) | NAS’s legal perspective warrants formal party status | Allowing intervention would complicate proceedings and cause delay | Court declines permissive intervention; amicus curiae status allowed |
| Adequacy of government representation | Gov’t may not fully represent NAS members’ Equal Protection arguments | Defendants are vigorously defending Priority Directive | No evidence of inadequacy; representation by defendants found sufficient |
| Amicus curiae participation | (Not directly opposed) | Suggests NAS can provide views as amicus rather than as a party | Court grants NAS permission to file an amicus brief; no participatory or discovery rights |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1994) (describing the policy balance underlying intervention)
- Floyd v. City of New York, 770 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (outlining the four requirements for intervention of right)
- Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001) (presumption of adequate representation when interests align)
- United States v. City of New York, 198 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 1999) (differences in litigation approach do not establish inadequate representation)