The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can move forward with slashing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding as part of its effort to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the justices lifted a lower court order that had blocked $783 million in cuts made by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The majority’s unsigned order frees the administration to proceed with canceling grants already targeted for elimination, while leaving in place restrictions on the administration’s guidance for future funding decisions.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberals in dissent, warning that the funding freeze should have remained in effect while litigation continues.
The ruling is the latest legal victory for President Donald Trump, allowing his administration to accelerate its plan to cancel hundreds of existing grants while a broader lawsuit plays out in the lower courts. Plaintiffs—including a coalition of 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups—warned that the cuts would inflict “incalculable losses in public health and human life.” They argue that many of the canceled studies address urgent issues like cancer treatments, infectious diseases, and maternal health.
The Justice Department countered that research funding decisions fall squarely within the executive branch’s discretion and should not be “subject to judicial second-guessing.” Lawyers for the administration also claimed that programs marketed under the DEI label may “conceal insidious racial discrimination,” echoing a broader push by Republicans to dismantle DEI programs across federal agencies, schools, and corporations.
At issue in the case is only a portion of the $12 billion in NIH research funding already cut under Trump’s orders. In its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, however, the administration also challenged nearly two dozen other judicial orders that have blocked similar funding cuts in related cases. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that federal judges should not be hearing these disputes at all, insisting that claims belong in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under a previous Supreme Court ruling that allowed cuts to a teacher-training program.
But the plaintiffs insist that research grants are categorically different from contracts like those in the teacher-training case. They contend that grants cannot simply be canceled midway without catastrophic consequences—disrupting careers, wasting years of work, and undermining data integrity in scientific studies. “Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country’s potential for scientific breakthroughs,” they told the court.
Earlier this summer, U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts sided with the challengers, calling the abrupt NIH cancellations arbitrary and discriminatory. Young, a Reagan appointee, expressed shock at the administration’s approach. “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” he said during a June hearing, later adding: “Have we no shame.” An appeals court left his order intact before the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court.
While Thursday’s ruling represents a major procedural win for the administration, the underlying lawsuit remains unresolved. The outcome could reshape the boundaries of federal authority over scientific research funding—and determine whether longstanding DEI-related initiatives in public health survive the administration’s aggressive rollback.
This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
The post John Roberts Joins All Liberal Justices in Supreme Court Dissent appeared first on Newsweek.
