On Monday, June 16, a federal judge declared illegal the Trump administration’s cuts to hundreds of grants issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
As the New York Times’s Zach Montague wrote on Monday afternoon, “A federal judge on Monday declared the Trump administration’s move to cut hundreds of grants issued by the National Institutes of Health illegal, accusing the government of discrimination against minorities and L.G.B.T.Q. individuals. Ruling from the bench, Judge William G. Young of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered the government to restore much of the funding.”
Montague wrote that “Judge Young, a Reagan appointee with 40 years of experience as a federal judge, said the Trump administration’s rationale for canceling the grants, which support research into topics such as gender identity and equity in health care, appeared to be rooted in prejudice. He noted the administration’s efforts to eliminate any trace of diversity and equity initiatives from the federal government, as well as its attacks on transgender people. He said that throughout his career he had ‘never seen government racial discrimination like this,’ and that he felt duty bound to state his conclusion about the government’s intent. ‘I would be blind not to call it out,’ he said.”
Also on Monday afternoon, Newsweek’s Jenna Sundel and Gabe Whisnant reported on the ruling, writing that, “In his ruling, Judge Young, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said he was reinstating grants that had been awarded to the organizations and Democratic-led states that had sued over the terminations, Reuters reported. Young is presiding over a non-jury trial involving two cases against the Trump administration over the funding cuts. In one case, the American Public Health Association, United Auto Workers Union and others allege that the NIH unlawfully issued directives leading to the termination of grants. In a second case, a group of Democrat-led states accuses the NIH of unlawfully canceling research grants.”
Per that, Bloomberg Law’s Ian Lopez on Monday afternoon quoted Judge Young as saying that “This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community. That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.”
Lopez wrote that “Young’s order comes ahead of a full written opinion he intends to later write in the case, which will offer more details on his decision. During arguments earlier Monday, Young took issue with the Trump administration’s contention that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives fueled unlawful discrimination, challenging a Justice Department attorney on the matter in the trial over cuts to research funding.”
Lopez quoted Judge Young as stating that “I understand that the extirpation of affirmative action is today a valid government position. I understand that. Affirmative action had various invidious calculus based upon race. I understand that. That’s not a license to discriminate.” Lopez noted that Judge Young was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. And he quoted the judge as saying that he sees “no evidence” that DEI initiatives in question were supporting unlawful discrimination. “Point me just anywhere in this record where it’s pointed out that any particular grant or group of grants is being used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race. From what I can see, it’s the reverse,” Young said.
Lopez noted that “Young’s decision comes in a trial over two cases against the Trump administration over the funding cuts. In one case, the American Public Health Association, United Auto Workers Union, and others accused the NIH of unlawfully issuing a series of directives that ultimately led to the termination of grants. They contend the directives conflict with constitutional, statutory, and regulatory requirements.”
Per all this, Olga Akselrod, senior counsel in the ACLU Racial Justice Program, wrote in a blog on the ACLU’s website on Monday afternoon that “In a major victory for public health, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts today struck down the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) directives that led to the cancellation of research grants based on sweeping, politically driven criteria. The court ruled that NIH’s actions targeting research involving disfavored topics and populations were unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and therefore void. The court reversed the grant terminations at issue in the case, stating that the government must immediately make the funds available.”
Akselrod quoted Brittany Charlton, M.D., associate professor at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, as stating that “Today’s decision is a crucial step in protecting public health and safeguarding critical research that helps us understand, prevent, and treat life-threatening diseases. Scientific research must be guided by evidence, not political agendas, and this ruling rightly restores important research projects that should never have been disrupted.”
Akselrod also quoted Heidi Moseson, Ph.D., M.P.H., senior research scientist at plaintiff Ibis Reproductive Health, as stating that “We are grateful that this ruling upholds the rigorous scientific process that the NIH has had in place for decades. Our research is about improving the accuracy of data collected in reproductive health research—work that is designed to improve the quality of care for all Americans. We should have been doing this work all along, without disruption. With this ruling, our team is one step closer to returning to the work we have already invested so much time and thought into. We will do everything we can to make up for lost time and ensure that the American public has the data we promised to deliver as soon as possible.”
And she quoted Peter G. Lurie, M.D., president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, as stating that “The ideologically motivated directives to terminate grants alleged to constitute DEI, ‘gender ideology,’ or other forbidden topics were, in fact, arbitrary and capricious, and have now been ruled unlawful,” said Center for Science in the Public Interest President Dr. Peter G. Lurie, one of the plaintiffs in the case. “Judge Young’s ruling thankfully starts researchers getting back to work delivering progress on cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, HIV, and other health challenges facing our diverse population.”
