The Dissents
The principal dissent was authored by Chief Justice Roberts, and partially joined by the three Democratic appointees: Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor. This dissent is notably concise, encapsulated in just one paragraph, which essentially conveys the idea that if the District Court possessed the authority to vacate the directives, it similarly possessed the authority to vacate the ‘Resulting Grant Terminations.’
Justice Jackson, on the other hand, opted to craft a more extensive dissent, centering her arguments on the tangible implications of the decision beyond mere abstract legal principles.
She pointed out that current law restricts plaintiffs from initiating lawsuits in the Court of Federal Claims while factual disputes are still being resolved in other courts. This situation implies that plaintiffs would first need to have the policy declared unlawful in the District Court, and only after this matter is definitively settled could they approach the Federal Claims Court to seek restoration of their grants. This lengthy process could extend over several years, during which scientists would be deprived of funding, leading to potentially dire outcomes.
Yearslong studies will lose validity. Animal subjects will be euthanized. Life-saving medication trials will be abandoned. Countless researchers will lose their jobs. And community health clinics will close.
Jackson expressed little concern regarding the government’s potential harm from funding the grants in the interim. “For the Government, the incremental expenditure of money is at stake,” she stated. “For the plaintiffs and the public, scientific progress itself hangs in the balance along with the lives that progress saves.”
This ruling ultimately eliminates any uncertainty surrounding the situation. While the District Court’s determination labeling the government’s policy as arbitrary and capricious might eventually be upheld, the prospects remain uncertain, especially since Barrett mentioned that she had not seen any arguments from the government in that regard. Meanwhile, Roberts’ commentary focused solely on venue issues. Furthermore, even if the policy was temporarily suspended, it is improbable that research proposals will be directed towards the less favored topics, considering the possibility of the policy’s reinstatement at any moment.
Even in the event that the ruling is affirmed, the subsequent legal processes will likely span years, delaying any attempts to restore the funding. Laboratories that had once relied on those grants may have already shifted their focus, with personnel working on those projects dispersed by the time resolution is achieved.
