Settlement requires NIH to review research grants blocked by voided policy

The ACLU and other organizations announced a settlement with the federal government that would require the National Institutes of Health to restart reviews of grant applications that were previously blocked on ideological grounds. The agreement must still be approved by the judge overseeing the case and does not guarantee funding, only that the applications will go through the standard peer review process.

The grants had been rejected without review under a Trump administration policy that identified disfavored research categories — including climate change, DEI, pandemic preparedness, and gender-related topics. That policy was later declared arbitrary and capricious and therefore in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; that finding was left intact after related Supreme Court proceedings.

Researchers whose funding was affected sued. The litigation split into two overlapping cases: one for grants that had already been cancelled and another for applications that had been blocked from consideration. In the cancelled-grants case, District Judge William Young found the policy "represents racial discrimination," voided the policy, and ordered funding restored, a determination the Supreme Court left standing even as it said the money-restoration claim needed to be pursued in a different venue.

With the policy voided, the settlement says the NIH must reconsider applications that were never reviewed.

Key Topics

Health, Science, Nih, Grants, Lawsuit, Aclu, Dei