Judge blocks Trump's termination of UC research grants

(CN) — A federal judge in California Monday said that University of California researchers are likely to succeed on their claims that the Trump administration’s mass termination of research grants involving certain blacklisted topics like “diversity” and “equity” are unconstitutional and antithetical to Congress’ directives.

U.S. District Judge Rita Lin granted a preliminary injunction to a group of researchers whose grants were terminated following executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) research. The judge also provisionally certified two classes of UC researchers: one consisting of researchers who lost their grants due to DEI, and one whose grants were terminated without any specific explanation.

The plaintiffs are six UC researchers who sued after losing their multi-year grants from the Environmental Protection Agency, National Endowment for the Humanities and National Science Foundation. Their projects had been addressing issues including wildfire smoke-related health risks in marginalized communities, landfill methane emissions and racial equity in STEM education.

“This is quintessential viewpoint discrimination and that likely violates the First Amendment,” Lin said in her order.

President Donald Trump issued executive orders upon taking office in January describing DEI research as “dangerous” and “immoral.” The orders also called for broad reviews of other grants deemed inconsistent with agency priorities.

But the judge aimed her criticism at his federal agencies, saying their grant termination letters contained only vague references to shifting priorities and no specific reasoning.

“The record reflects that the challenged grant terminations were likely performed en masse, without individualized analysis, and without providing grantees with reasoned explanation for the terminations,” Lin wrote.

Lin also found that the National Endowment for the Humanities and National Science Foundation likely exceeded their statutory authority by terminating grants that aligned with their congressionally mandated objectives. She noted that Congress directed the National Science Foundation to fund programs that broaden participation of underrepresented groups in STEM, yet the agency terminated grants for projects aimed at achieving those goals.

The Trump administration had raised jurisdictional challenges to the suit, arguing that the claims should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims as breach-of-contract claims and that the plaintiffs lack standing, because they are not parties to the grant agreements.

Lin rejected both arguments.

“It is nonsensical to send plaintiffs on a pointless round trip to the Court of Federal Claims,” she said. “That ‘would mean that no court has jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ claims,’ a result that is not only ‘contrary to common sense’ but also ‘conflicts with the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action’ under the [Administrative Procedure Act]."

The injunction vacates the federal agencies’ terminations of the class members’ grants. It also blocks the agencies from sending future termination letters to class members if those letters are vague, lack clear reasoning, or are based on the recipients’ viewpoints.

The case joins several other legal challenges against Trump’s executive orders that have resulted in temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Boston struck down similar National Institutes of Health directives in a lawsuit brought by state attorneys general.

The UC system received $4.069 billion in federal research awards in fiscal year 2024, with federal funding historically accounting for more than half of the system’s total research awards.

Lin required plaintiffs to post a nominal bond of $100 and denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal.

Follow @JeremyYurow