Introduction to the Case
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to restore hundreds of suspended UCLA science research grants, affecting more than a third of awards totaling $584 million that the government abruptly froze late last month. In her evening order, issued hours after a San Francisco court hearing, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin said the government’s slashing of UCLA funds violated her June ruling blocking science research grant terminations.
Background of the Case
The National Science Foundation’s “suspension of the grants at issue here is vacated,” wrote Lin, of the Northern District of California. She ordered the Trump administration to file an update by Aug. 19 detailing whether it had restored the grants and, if not, “an explanation of why it was not feasible and a description of the steps that have been taken thus far.” The case — independently filed by a group of UC professors — is the first legal test of whether massive grant suspensions at UCLA will pass court muster.
Details of the Suspended Grants
The Trump administration has frozen more than half a billion dollars in science, medical and other federal grants, citing the university’s alleged discrimination in admissions and failure to “promote a research environment free of antisemitism.” The UCLA suspensions cover research funded by the NSF, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy. They include studies in areas such as cancer, neurobiology and clean energy.
Reaction from the University
In a statement Tuesday, a UC spokesperson said the restoration of funding would be “critical” to the university. “While we have not had an opportunity to review the court’s order and were not party to the suit, restoration of National Science Foundation funds is critical to research the University of California performs on behalf of California and the nation,” said Stett Holbrook, associate director of strategic and critical communications.
Case Predates Major UCLA Grant Freezes in July
The order issued Tuesday is related only to NSF grants, which make up about 300 of those frozen at UCLA. Hundreds of other suspended grants from the NIH and Energy Department are not affected. The court challenge did not come in a case filed by the University of California, which has not sued over the cuts. Instead, it came in a two-month-old class-action lawsuit filed by researchers at UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley.
What Led to the Court Challenge
UC professors funded by the NSF, Environmental Protection Agency and National Endowment for the Humanities had sued, arguing they faced cuts because their grants appeared in federal keyword searches related to race amid President Trump’s push to rid the government of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. They also said their funding was removed through the use of generic form letters with no explanation.
What Happened at Tuesday’s Hearing
On Tuesday, Lin challenged Trump administration lawyers to explain why the new science cuts at UCLA did not violate her earlier court order. “Two weeks ago, NSF went out and, again, used form letters to cut off funding to researchers at UCLA en masse,” Lin said. She asked Justice Department lawyers what set apart the most recent cuts from previous ones she enjoined.
Government’s Argument
Government lawyers replied that the funding freezes were “suspensions,” not “terminations,” which were the subject of Lin’s earlier ruling. “If it is a suspension, then it is not covered under the court’s injunction,” said Justice Department lawyer Jason Altabet. Another Justice Department lawyer, Michael Velchik, argued that the grants had been cut so recently that they could not be viewed as “terminations.”
Court’s Ruling
In her order after the hearing, Lin disagreed. “NSF’s indefinite suspensions differ from a termination in name only,” she wrote. Lin later added: “For avoidance of doubt, the court also clarifies that grant ‘termination,’ as the term is used in the preliminary Injunction, encompasses circumstances where grant funding is cut off on a long-term or indefinite basis, like the suspensions carried out by NSF on July 30” at UCLA.
Conclusion
The ruling by Judge Lin is a significant development in the ongoing dispute between the Trump administration and the University of California over research grants. The restoration of funding to UCLA researchers will be crucial for the continuation of their work in various fields. The case highlights the importance of the judiciary in protecting the rights of researchers and institutions against arbitrary actions by the government.
FAQs
- Q: What was the reason behind the Trump administration’s decision to freeze UCLA research grants?
A: The Trump administration cited the university’s alleged discrimination in admissions and failure to “promote a research environment free of antisemitism” as the reasons for freezing the grants. - Q: How many grants were affected by the freeze?
A: The freeze affected more than a third of awards totaling $584 million. - Q: What was the court’s ruling in the case?
A: The court ruled that the Trump administration must restore hundreds of suspended UCLA science research grants. - Q: What is the next step for the Trump administration?
A: The Trump administration must file an update by Aug. 19 detailing whether it had restored the grants and, if not, provide an explanation for why it was not feasible and a description of the steps taken so far. - Q: How will the restoration of funding affect UCLA researchers?
A: The restoration of funding will allow hundreds of UCLA researchers to get back to work on their projects, including studies in areas such as cancer, neurobiology, and clean energy.
