The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a significant ruling in the case of Thakur v. Trump, No. 25-4249, which addresses the termination of research grants for University of California (UC) researchers. The court’s decision affects numerous researchers who had their funding cut and raises important questions about free speech and government funding policies. This ruling may have lasting implications for how federal agencies manage grant funding and the criteria they use for such decisions.
The case began when six UC researchers filed a lawsuit against the federal government after their research grants were terminated. These terminations were made through form letters by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The plaintiffs claimed that the terminations were based on Executive Orders issued by President Trump that aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from federal programs.
The plaintiffs in this case include Neeta Thakur, a physician and associate professor at UC San Francisco, Ken Alex, a climate policy researcher, and others who received grants from various federal agencies. They alleged that the abrupt termination of their grants caused significant harm, including loss of funding, reputational damage, and disruption of ongoing research projects. They sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate their funding, claiming that the terminations were unlawful and violated their rights.
The dispute reached the Ninth Circuit after a district court initially granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the researchers. This injunction provisionally certified two classes: the Form Termination Class, which included those who received form letters without specific explanations, and the DEI Termination Class, which included those whose grants were terminated specifically due to DEI-related Executive Orders. The government appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the injunction was improperly granted.
The Ninth Circuit ruled on several key issues in its opinion. First, the court affirmed that the plaintiffs had established Article III standing, meaning they had a concrete injury due to the grant terminations. The court noted that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the terminations resulted in a loss of funding and other harms, including reputational damage and project disruptions. The court stated, "Plaintiffs adequately alleged injury flowing from the government’s grant terminations where they alleged the grant terminations resulted in a loss of funding and declared that no alternative funding was readily available."
However, the court reversed the preliminary injunction for the Form Termination Class, concluding that this class was not likely to succeed on the merits of its claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that the Tucker Act barred district court jurisdiction for claims that were essentially contract actions, which applied to the Form Termination Class's claims. The court explained, "The Tucker Act bars district court jurisdiction for an APA claim if that APA claim is at its essence a contract action."
In contrast, the court upheld the preliminary injunction for the DEI Termination Class. The panel determined that this class was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim. The court noted that the agencies had terminated grants based on the recipients' perceived expression of DEI or environmental justice viewpoints. The court stated, "Because the agencies’ termination of grants was aimed at the suppression of viewpoints with which the government disagrees, it likely violates the First Amendment."
This ruling has significant implications for federal funding policies and the rights of researchers. The court's affirmation of the DEI Termination Class's claims suggests that the government cannot terminate funding based on viewpoint discrimination. This could set a precedent for future cases involving government funding and free speech rights, particularly in academic and research contexts.
Moving forward, the ruling may influence how federal agencies approach grant funding and the criteria they use for termination. Researchers who advocate for DEI initiatives may feel more secure in their funding, knowing that the government cannot arbitrarily cut funding based on their viewpoints. However, the government may seek to appeal the ruling, particularly regarding the Form Termination Class's claims.
As of now, details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may shape the landscape of federal research funding and the balance between government priorities and the rights of researchers.