The recent ruling in Trump v. Casa has resulted in the limitation of a national injunction against illegal activities. While the court found the government’s actions illegal, the ruling allows Judge Young to grant protection only to individuals who were parties in the case. Those who lost grants but were not part of the involved parties, or who are outside the suing states, remain unprotected.
The ruling primarily examines whether the cancellation of grants violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which regulates the executive branch’s decision-making processes. This law stipulates that such decisions must not be “arbitrary and capricious.” Judge Young determined that the government’s rationale did not meet this standard.
Arbitrary and capricious
Judge Young noted that the grant terminations stemmed from the NIH’s aggressive stance against vague notions of diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and gender identity. He observed that this stance has broadened to encompass areas like vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19, public opinion, and climate change. The ambiguity surrounding ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ plays a crucial role in his analysis. Young pointed out, “No one has ever defined it to this Court—and this Court has asked multiple times,” highlighting the lack of clear definitions in Trump’s executive order, which initiated this campaign. He also found inconsistencies in various NIH documents attempting to define DEI, with some reflecting circular reasoning.
Additionally, Young remarked that many officials who authored these memos tended to resign soon after, suggesting, “it is not lost on the Court that oftentimes people vote with their feet.”
The NIH staff was left without clear guidelines regarding how to identify grants that might breach the newly imposed anti-DEI policy, and how such assessments could juxtapose with the scientific merits of those grants. Evidence presented during the trial indicated that decisions regarding grant terminations were often made by DOGE, with NIH officials approving lists of grants to cancel in a matter of minutes, as illustrated by one case where an NIH official greenlit the termination list just two minutes after receiving it.
