When Donald Trump started his second term in office, he began with a flurry of executive orders that targeted DEI initiatives. Among them were more than 1,700 grants by the National Institute of Health that touched on race and gender. After a long, drawn-out battle at the Supreme Court, Trump was allowed to maintain his halt in grant funding, but the court also signaled that this ruling was not something Trump should become accustomed to.
CNN has described the Supreme Court as “heavily fractured.” Despite the heavy conservative bent of the judges on the bench, the Trump administration only secured a favorable ruling by a slim 5-4 margin, which was surprising considering Trump has been receiving major rulings in his favor lately. When Trump signed the executive order cutting almost $800 million in funding, his administration claimed that the contracts promote “immoral race-based preferences” and “sex-based preferences” under the guise of DEI efforts.
Democratic officials in 16 different states challenged Trump’s executive order in courts with the argument that, while the case is still being deliberated, scientists engaged in serious research would be disrupted. The officials wanted the flow of funding to continue as the case was being heard. The result, however, means that researchers will not get access to the funds. Still, the officials can bring the case before different federal courts.
That’s not to say everyone received this ruling with optimism. The highly criticized Supreme Court justice in conservative corners, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, had some harsh words for the court. Jackson wrote, “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: there are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.”
Both attorneys pointed to specific grants to showcase why the funding needed to continue or be discontinued. The Trump administration highlighted a study titled Buddhism and HIV Stigma in Thailand, while public health groups pointed to another study that seemed closer to home, Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia Neuropathologies and Exposures to Traffic Pollution Mixtures. Much like the crackdown that was led by DOGE not too long ago, the argument here seems to stem from the Trump administration throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
The Trump administration argued in court that the federal government is spending money on “discretionary grants” that have no way of being recouped. This administration has been very stern about finding ways to reduce government expenditure and “waste” in light of the rising deficit and lowered credit rating. But economic experts have pointed out that this approach is not necessarily working — instead pointing at fixing the tariff situation and increasing taxes on billionaires. Trump’s megabill, however, was his administration doing the exact opposite.
In this particular case of whether the funding gets paused or continues during the trial, the court heavily relied on whether the plaintiffs would repay the government grant money were Trump’s administration to ultimately win the main lawsuit.
As the case now moves to the lower courts, U.S. District Judge William Young is already chipping away at Trump’s victory over the grants. Young, who has served on the bench since the Ronald Reagan administration, said in his assessment of the case that he has “never seen government racial discrimination like this.”
