Mass. federal judge apologizes to Supreme Court over NIH research funding case
After the Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge didn't have jurisdiction to restore hundreds of grants from the National Institutes of Health, the judge apologized in a Tuesday pre-trial conference.
"It is incumbent upon me to, on the record here, to apologize to Justices [Neil] Gorsuch and [Brett] Kavanaugh if they think that anything this court has done has been done in defiance of a precedential action of the Supreme Court of the United States," said Judge William Young.
He went on to say that he didn't intend to go against the Supreme Court and that no other judge in any other court has thought he defied higher orders throughout the over 40 years he has served in judicial office.
"I stand corrected and those justices and the entire court can be assured that this court will absolutely obey ... the precedential decisions of the Supreme Court as I have done and tried to do throughout all of my judicial service," Young said.
Young provided his thoughts during a Tuesday pre-trial conference, which was intended to discuss logistics for a September 15 trial and to address whether NIH grant applications may proceed.
A recess was taken following Young's remarks as the attorneys for both sides met.
What happened between Young and the Supreme Court?
In June, Young ordered that the National Institutes of Health's directives were unlawful. Those grants were cut over "disfavored topics and populations," including diversity, equity and inclusion.
He also ordered the Trump administration to restore hundreds of grants from NIH, which amounted to $783 million worth of grants.
"I've sat on this bench now for 40 years. I've never seen government racial discrimination like this," Young said at the time.
In August, the Supreme Court partly stayed the district court's judgment. While the Supreme Court didn't invalidate Young's judgment on the guidance, it determined that Young lacked the jurisdiction to restore the grants.
The Supreme Court ruled that court cases like these should be put in the Court of Federal Claims — but the "guidance" issue must make it all the way through the courts before individual grant cancellations can be disputed.
As such, legally, future grants can't be terminated along Trump's guidance due to ties to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programing. However, the grants that Young ordered to be restored are now in limbo — neither terminated nor active.
Who is behind the lawsuit?
There were two court cases that were heard jointly on Tuesday. One, which was filed in April , was filed by individual researchers; the American Public Health Association; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; and Ibis Reproductive Health.
They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts , Protect Democracy and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
An associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Brittany Charlton, is one of those suing . Her funding to study the mental health of young LGBTQ people was cut, affecting a team of 18 researchers and causing students to fear for their safety.
The other case was filed by Massachusetts and a group of over a dozen Democratic states, similarly stating that the cuts to research grants were illegal.
At the same time, Harvard University is anxiously waiting for a decision from a different federal judge over its lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking to restore canceled government funding for the university .
The recent Supreme Court decision might change the trajectory of the lawsuit.
Jodie Ferise, partner at higher education law practice at Church Church Hittle and Antrim law firm, said the result could have consequences across higher education, which has been in the cross hairs of the Trump administration .
"Harvard has been carrying higher ed on its back. Harvard's been graciously serving as this torchbearer while other institutions have capitulated. But I think much of that was because on the horizon was winning on the merits. And now, I would imagine it does bring additional weight to bear," Ferise said.
More Higher Ed
Read the original article on MassLive .
