Boston, MA – In a unanimous decision on July 4, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a lower court order directing the Trump administration to reinstate National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants slashed through controversial executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and “gender ideology.”
The ruling, which rejected the administration’s request to stay the order, marks a significant setback for President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape federal health research, reinforcing accusations of discriminatory and unlawful actions.
The decision shows the broader clash over the administration’s use of executive power to influence scientific funding.
Judicial Rebuke to Executive Overreach
The First Circuit’s ruling affirmed U.S. District Judge William Young’s late-June order, which nullified the NIH grant cuts as “void, illegal, and vacated.”
Young, a Ronald Reagan appointee, issued a scathing critique during a mid-June bench trial, accusing the Trump administration of racial discrimination and bias against the LGBTQ community. “I am hesitant to draw this conclusion—but I have an unflinching obligation to call it out,” Young declared. “This represents discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community and racial minorities. My duty is to call it out.”
The dispute stems from executive orders issued earlier in 2025, in which Trump targeted NIH grants tied to DEI initiatives and research involving gender-related topics, labeling them as promoting “radical” ideologies.
The orders disrupted the grant-making process, halted funding for ongoing projects, and restricted research on topics the administration deemed controversial, prompting lawsuits from affected researchers and institutions.
Judge Young’s June 23 order declared the rescissions “OF NO EFFECT,” and his July 2 memorandum elaborated: “The new Administration began weaponizing what should not be weaponized—the health of all Americans through its abuse of HHS and the NIH systems, creating chaos and promoting an unreasonable agenda of blacklisting certain topics.”
Young ruled that the cuts violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), statutory law, and constitutional principles, arguing they lacked scientific justification and undermined the NIH’s mission.
The Appeals Court’s Decision
The Trump administration sought to stay Young’s order, arguing that the case should be handled by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act of 1887, which governs contractual disputes with the federal government.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate contended that the NIH grant cuts were contractual in nature, not administrative, and thus outside Young’s jurisdiction. The First Circuit, in its July 4 ruling, denied the stay request but did not yet address the jurisdictional argument, noting that the government’s filing was timely, submitted a day after Young’s detailed memorandum.
“This matter is before the court on defendants-appellants’ ‘Time Sensitive Motion for Stay Pending Appeal,’” the panel wrote. “The request for immediate relief is DENIED.” The court set a briefing schedule, requiring plaintiffs to respond by July 8, 2025, and any reply by July 9, with a promise to address the broader stay request promptly. While the jurisdictional question remains open, the ruling ensures that the NIH grants must be restored pending further litigation, a victory for researchers and advocates.
MORE STORIES:
- Clinic in District Trump Won by Over 50 Points Shuts Down
- Trump’s Confused ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Remark Sparks Cognitive Decline Fears
- Rep. Jasmine Crockett Blasts GOP for Backing Trump’s Budget: A Sellout of American Families
Why It Matters
The NIH grant cuts are part of a larger wave of Trump administration policies facing legal challenges, including efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, slash Medicaid funding, and overhaul Voice of America.
Critics argue that the administration’s targeting of DEI and gender-related research reflects a broader agenda to suppress scientific inquiry that conflicts with its political priorities. The cuts have disrupted critical health research, including studies on health disparities and transgender healthcare, threatening the pipeline of future scientists, as Young noted in his ruling.
On X, reactions to the appeals court decision were polarized. “The courts are standing up to Trump’s attack on science and fairness,” one user posted, celebrating the ruling. Another countered, “This is judicial overreach—Trump’s just cutting wasteful DEI nonsense.” The debate mirrors broader tensions over the administration’s policies, which have sparked protests and lawsuits nationwide.
What This Means for Science and Policy
The First Circuit’s decision is a significant blow to Trump’s efforts to reshape federal health research through executive action. By upholding Young’s order, the court reinforces the principle that administrative actions must comply with the APA and constitutional standards, particularly when they impact public health.
The restoration of NIH grants ensures that critical research can continue, at least temporarily, but the ongoing appeal could escalate to higher courts, potentially setting a precedent for executive authority over scientific funding.
The ruling also highlights the administration’s broader legal challenges, from the troubled “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center to the $16 million Paramount settlement. As the 2026 midterms approach, these controversies could fuel Democratic efforts to portray Trump’s policies as chaotic and discriminatory.
For now, the First Circuit’s decision stands as a rebuke to what Young called an “unreasoned agenda,” reaffirming the judiciary’s role in checking executive overreach.
Discover more from Local Stories
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.