Introduction to the Case
A federal judge Monday ordered the Trump administration to restore $500 million in UCLA medical research grants, halting for now a nearly two-month funding crisis that UC leaders said threatened the future of the nation’s premier public university system.
Background of the Funding Crisis
The opinion by U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California added hundreds of UCLA’s National Institutes of Health grants to an ongoing class-action lawsuit that already led to the reversal of tens of millions of dollars in grants from the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Endowment for the Humanities and other federal agencies to the University of California.
Impact on UCLA and Other UC Campuses
Lin’s order provides the biggest relief to UCLA but affects federal funding awarded to all 10 UC campuses. Lin ruled that the NIH grants were suspended by form letters that were unspecific to the research, a likely violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates executive branch rulemaking. In addition to the medical grant freezes — which had prompted talks of possible UCLA layoffs or closures of labs conducting cancer and stroke research, among other studies — Lin said the government would have to restore millions of Department of Defense and Department of Transportation grants to UC schools.
The Judge’s Decision and Its Implications
Lin explained her thinking during a hearing last week. She said the Trump administration committed a “fundamental sin” in its “un-reasoned mass terminations” of grants using “letters that don’t go through the required factors that the agency is supposed to consider.” The preliminary injunction will be in place as the lawsuit proceeds. But in broadening the case, Lin agreed with plaintiffs that there would be irreparable harm if the suspensions were not immediately reversed.
The Lawsuit and Its Progress
The suit was originally filed in June by UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley professors fighting a separate, earlier round of Trump administration grant clawbacks. UCLA faculty with NIH grants later joined the case. The University of California is not a party in the suit. The judge, a Biden appointee, told Department of Justice lawyers to make a court filing by Sept. 29 explaining “all steps” the government has taken to comply with her order or, if necessary, explain why restoring grants “was not feasible.”
Reaction to the Ruling
UC did not immediately respond Monday to a request for comment about the ruling. Spokespeople for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, and the Department of Justice did not respond to questions about the government’s next steps. The Trump administration had appealed an earlier ruling in the case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Last month, the appeals court declined to reverse that ruling by Lin. Prior court orders in the case have resulted in government notices to campuses within days saying that funding will flow again.
Impact on Researchers and the University
“This is wonderful news for UC researchers and should be tremendously consequential in ongoing UC negotiations with the Trump administration,” said Claudia Polsky, a UC Berkeley law professor who is part of the legal team behind the suit. “The restoration of more than half a billion dollars to UCLA in NIH funding alone gives UC the strongest hand it has had yet in resisting unlawful federal demands.” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, worked with Polsky and argued the case in front of Lin. “The judge made clear what she said previously and the 9th Circuit held: The termination of grants was illegal and they must be restored,” he said.
Government’s Argument and the Judge’s Response
Trump administration lawyers argued against lifting more grant freezes, saying the case was in the wrong jurisdiction. A Justice Department lawyer, Jason Altabet, said during the hearing last week that instead of a District Court lawsuit filed by faculty, the proper venue would be for UC to file a case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Altabet based his arguments on a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the government’s suspension of $783 million in NIH grants — to universities and research centers throughout the country — in part because the issue, the high court said, was not correctly within the jurisdiction of a lower federal court. In her Monday opinion, Lin disagreed with the government’s position that professors could not sue in District Court or the federal claims court.
Conclusion
The ruling by Judge Lin is a significant victory for UCLA and the University of California system, as it restores crucial funding for medical research grants. The decision also sets a precedent for future cases involving grant suspensions and highlights the importance of proper procedure in executive branch decision-making. As the lawsuit continues, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration will respond to the order and what further actions will be taken to resolve the funding crisis.
FAQs
- What was the ruling by Judge Lin regarding the UCLA medical research grants?
- Judge Lin ordered the Trump administration to restore $500 million in UCLA medical research grants.
- What was the reason behind the Trump administration’s suspension of the grants?
- The Trump administration cited allegations of campus antisemitism, use of race in admissions, and the school’s recognition of transgender identities as its reasons for suspending the grants.
- How will the ruling affect researchers at UCLA and other UC campuses?
- The ruling will provide relief to researchers who had their grants suspended, allowing them to continue their work without fear of funding cuts.
- What is the next step in the lawsuit?
- The government must make a court filing by Sept. 29 explaining its compliance with the order or explaining why restoring grants is not feasible.
- What are the implications of the ruling for future cases involving grant suspensions?
- The ruling sets a precedent for proper procedure in executive branch decision-making and highlights the importance of following the Administrative Procedure Act.
