Friday, a federal judge permanently blocked the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from implementing indirect cost caps on research grants. The NIH is now appealing.
Judge Angel Kelley for the District of Massachusetts delivered permanent injunctions in each of the trio of suits brought against the NIH and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), related to the funding limits.
Kelley’s April 4 ruling prohibits the federal government from capping research grants, an initiative that President Donald Trump rolled out earlier this year to limit indirect costs tied to biomedical research, such as facilities, equipment and administrative expenses. Kelley had previously delivered a temporary injunction designed to halt the action.
The three separate cases were brought forward by 22 states, numerous universities across the country and several trade and healthcare advocacy associations. The plaintiffs argued that the NIH initiative “will devastate medical research at America’s universities” and that the change violates the Administrative Procedure Act and is therefore unlawful.
Judge Kelley agreed, ruling that the action seemed unnecessarily reckless and flouted federal rulemaking protocol.
The judge’s decision followed a request from the federal government asking for the temporary injunction to become permanent so the HHS could move forward with an appeal.
Now, the federal health agency has done just that, filing appeals on the three cases, all of which are under Kelley’s purview. The administration hopes to bring the cases to the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to April 8 court documents, teeing up future legal battles.
The HHS has not yet responded to Fierce’s questions regarding the suit, including motivations behind the appeal, whether the administration will recognize a final decision on the matter and the current cap status.
Beyond the indirect grant cuts—which limit certain costs tied to NIH grants at 15%, as compared with a historical average of 28% to 29% for the agency—the Trump administration has also pulled research funding for universities and researchers conducting work that doesn’t align with the president’s executive orders.
Some examples include science related to LGBTQ+ health issues and other matters of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), plus work that could potentially benefit researchers in China.
On April 2, the American Public Health Association and several researchers sued the NIH and HHS over the cuts, arguing that the grants have been unlawfully terminated. The move impacts more than $2.4 billion in grant money, including $1.3 billion in funds already spent on projects stopped midstream and $1.1 billion that has been illegally revoked, according to the suit.
Separately, about 1,900 scientists—including researchers at every Ivy League university and multiple Nobel Prize winners—have penned a public statement calling on the Trump administration to “cease its wholesale assault on U.S. science.” The scientists warn that “the damage to our nation’s scientific enterprise could take decades to reverse.”