Supreme Court Allows Trump to Slash $783M DEI Research Funds/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow the Trump administration to proceed with cutting $783 million in NIH research funding linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. The decision lifts a lower court’s block while litigation continues. Critics call the ruling a major blow to scientific research and public health.
SCOTUS DEI Ruling: Quick Looks
- Supreme Court permits $783M in NIH research cuts tied to DEI efforts.
- 5-4 ruling favors Trump administration; Roberts joins liberal dissent.
- Decision allows cancellation of active grants while lawsuit proceeds.
- Amy Coney Barrett voted to block future DEI funding cuts.
- DOJ says DEI efforts can “mask racial discrimination.”
- Plaintiffs include 16 Democratic attorneys general and health advocates.
- Justice Jackson issues scathing dissent calling ruling “Calvinball jurisprudence.”
- Cuts are part of larger $12B rollback in federal DEI-linked research.
Supreme Court Allows Trump to Slash $783M DEI Research Funds
Deep Look
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 5-4 decision Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the green light to cut $783 million in research funding previously allocated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), striking a major blow to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in federally funded research.
The ruling lifts a lower court’s block on the administration’s cuts, allowing Trump officials to move forward with canceling hundreds of existing NIH grants connected to DEI objectives — though it also prevents further cuts for now, thanks to a key vote from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The decision represents a significant victory for Trump in his broader campaign to dismantle federal DEI initiatives, but it’s a ruling that has drawn sharp backlash from health experts, legal analysts, and state leaders.
Trump’s Anti-DEI Push Gets Legal Boost
The administration has argued that DEI-focused programs amount to unconstitutional racial discrimination, and that decisions about public funding should not be subject to “judicial second-guessing.” Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated that the cuts align with previous Supreme Court rulings, including a recent decision allowing the termination of DEI-related teacher training contracts.
The court’s conservative majority, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Barrett, agreed that blocking the cuts would interfere with the executive branch’s discretion over federal spending priorities.
“All these interventions should have been unnecessary,” wrote Justice Gorsuch in a concurring opinion, criticizing lower courts for resisting the administration’s authority.
Critics Warn of Lasting Harm to Science and Health
The plaintiffs — 16 Democratic state attorneys general and a coalition of public health organizations — argued that research funding is not equivalent to government contracts and should not be subject to sudden political reversals.
They warned that canceling active NIH studies midway would:
- Destroy years of collected data
- Derail ongoing clinical trials
- Undermine scientists’ careers
- Delay or prevent key public health breakthroughs
“This is a significant setback for public health,” the coalition said in a joint statement.
In June, U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, called the administration’s move “arbitrary and discriminatory,” adding during a hearing:
“Have we no shame?”
His order was left in place by an appeals court — until Thursday’s reversal by the Supreme Court.
Justice Jackson’s Dissent: “Calvinball Jurisprudence”
In a blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of enabling the Trump administration to misuse emergency appeals and override established legal norms.
“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote, referencing the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. “We seem to have two rules: that one, and this Administration always wins.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, often a swing vote in contentious cases, sided with the liberal justices in opposing the funding cuts, but his vote was not enough to block the decision.
What’s Still Blocked — And What’s Not
While the court allowed existing grant cancellations to proceed, it left in place a separate order blocking future funding cuts under the anti-DEI directive. That means the Trump administration cannot yet cancel additional studies beyond those already targeted.
However, ongoing litigation in lower courts may determine whether the broader rollback of over $12 billion in research grants tied to DEI initiatives will continue unimpeded.
The case is also part of a larger effort by Trump officials to shift the balance of federal policy away from race-conscious initiatives, with DEI programs in education, health care, and federal hiring also under review or subject to termination.
What’s Next?
Legal experts anticipate further challenges — both on constitutional grounds and over administrative law violations, including claims that the NIH failed to follow proper procedures in withdrawing funding.
In the meantime, researchers impacted by the cuts say they face the loss of years of work, career disruption, and uncertainty about how to continue essential studies ranging from cancer research to community health outreach.
“We are being told our work is disposable because of politics,” one NIH-funded researcher told reporters.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.