Supreme Court backs Trump in slashing DEI-focused NIH funding

In a razor-thin decision, the Supreme Court has handed the Trump administration a significant win by allowing the cancellation of hundreds of millions in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants tied to diversity initiatives, as The Hill reports.

On Thursday, the high court ruled 5-4 to partially overturn a lower court’s block, greenlighting the administration’s move to axe funding for programs deemed out of step with President Trump’s priorities.

This saga kicked off in February when the NIH began terminating grants that didn’t align with the administration’s vision, particularly those linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Specific examples cited by administration lawyers include studies on Buddhism’s role in HIV stigma in Thailand and puberty control in transgender youth. It’s a bold move, and one that’s sparked a firestorm of debate over federal funding priorities.

Lower court pushback meets SCOTUS resistance

By June, U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee no less, stepped in to halt the cuts after lawsuits from health organizations and 16 Democrat state attorneys general. His ruling protected a hefty $783 million in grants, declaring the cancellations unlawful. But apparently, the Trump team wasn’t ready to wave the white flag just yet.

The administration appealed, only to be rebuffed by a 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that upheld Judge Young’s order. Undeterred, they took their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that Young overstepped his authority by meddling in what they call a simple contract dispute. Turns out, persistence pays when you’ve got the right justices listening.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 split saw Republican-appointed justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett siding with the administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, however, joined the three Democratic-appointed justices in dissent — a rare fracture in the conservative bloc. It’s a reminder that even on the right, not everyone marches to the same drumbeat.

Justices clash over legal boundaries

Justice Neil Gorsuch didn’t mince words, writing, “Lower court judges… are never free to defy” Supreme Court precedent. Well, that’s a polite slap on the wrist for Judge Young, isn’t it? If only every disagreement could be settled with such a crisp reminder of who’s boss.

Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting, countered with, “This relief… falls well within” the district court’s reach. It’s a noble defense of judicial discretion, but in this case, it’s a minority opinion that couldn’t sway the outcome. The majority clearly saw this as a question of overreach, not principle.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a spicier take, lamenting, “This is Calvinball jurisprudence” with no fixed rules except that the administration always wins. Ouch — that’s a zinger worthy of a courtroom drama. But let’s be real: hyperbole aside, the majority’s ruling rests on a technical argument about jurisdiction, not a blank check for executive power.

Administration’s argument gains traction

The Trump administration insisted that Judge Young lacked the authority to intervene, claiming federal law relegates such contract disputes to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The five-justice majority agreed, though Justice Barrett split from her conservative peers by supporting part of Young’s ruling on NIH guidance documents. It’s a nuanced win, but a win nonetheless for those skeptical of judicial overreach.

The Justice Department didn’t hold back, accusing Young of ignoring a prior Supreme Court decision from April 2025 on similar education grant cuts. They wrote, “That alone should warrant” a sharp correction. It’s hard not to nod along when you see lower courts seemingly picking and choosing which precedents to follow.

Democrat-led states and health groups pushed back, arguing in their filings that “the federal government’s application spins” a misleading story about lower court defiance. It’s a compelling counter, but against a conservative majority, it’s like bringing a butter knife to a gunfight. The reality is, legal arguments often take a backseat to ideological alignment at this level.

Case far from over as stakes remain high

This Supreme Court ruling isn’t the final word — the case could circle back for further review. That’s a small comfort for those who see these grants as vital to advancing health equity, but it’s also a signal that the fight over federal funding priorities is far from settled. Patience might be a virtue, but in politics, it’s often a luxury.

For now, the decision marks the 18th emergency bid the Supreme Court has at least partially granted during Trump’s second term. It’s a pattern that suggests this administration knows how to play the judicial game — and play it well. Critics might cry foul, but supporters will argue it’s just effective governance in a polarized era.

At the heart of this ruling is a broader question: who gets to decide how taxpayer dollars are spent on science and health? For conservatives wary of what they see as a progressive agenda creeping into federal programs, this is a step toward accountability. For others, it’s a chilling rollback of initiatives meant to address systemic inequities — proof that in Washington, priorities can shift faster than a weathervane in a storm.