Dear colleagues,
I am writing to follow up on last Friday's brief note regarding the Supreme Court's ruling on the Trump Administration's application for a stay of the MA District Court ruling involving federal award terminations.
The stay was in part granted and in part denied.
What was granted: By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court found that the MA District Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims challenging the termination of awards; those claims would have to be brought before the Court of Federal Claims.
What was denied: By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court agreed with the MA District Court ruling that the NIH rules and guidance supporting award terminations were likely unlawful.
It is unclear how this split ruling will be interpreted and implemented by the Trump Administration. My best guess is as follows:
- Further award terminations using the same rationale are unlikely, as this rationale was found likely to be unlawful.
- Reinstatements of still terminated awards are also unlikely, as the Supreme Court stayed the lower court's ruling that terminated awards must be reinstated.
- Re-termination of reinstated terminations may occur. If the action taken is positioned as a recension of the reinstatement (i.e., the termination is indirectly re-established), this may be lawful. Termination of reinstated grants based on new or different guidance may be lawful. Direct re-termination based on the same guidance, however, would seem unlawful.
At this time, UCSF has not seen any new terminations or re-terminations of awards. We will be following these data closely, and we will provide updates as we learn more.
Yours,
Hal
Harold R. Collard, MD, MS
Vice Chancellor for Research
Professor of Medicine and Health Policy