A federal judge has extended an order preventing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from implementing proposed grant funding cuts to medical and scientific research institutions. Judge Angel Kelley held a hearing where plaintiffs, including states and research associations, argued that the cuts, totaling around $4 billion for indirect costs, would cause irreparable harm. They highlighted risks such as staff layoffs, halted clinical trials, and financial strains, particularly for smaller universities. The government’s lawyer asserted that these harms were speculative, defending the cuts as a means to allocate more funds directly to research. The judge is considering a permanent resolution.
A federal judge decided on Friday to prolong a ruling that prevents the National Institutes of Health from decreasing grant funding to institutions engaged in medical and scientific research until she arrives at a more definitive conclusion.
Judge Angel Kelley of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts had issued a temporary injunction against the Trump administration’s funding cuts earlier this month, with that injunction set to lapse on Monday. This situation prompted an urgent hearing on Friday during which states and organizations representing those institutions urged her to consider a more permanent cessation of the cuts.
The implications of the lawsuit became particularly clear during one part of the hearing that concentrated on “irreparable harm,” wherein Judge Kelley requested both parties to clarify whether the suspension of funds would represent an irreversible setback for the universities and hospitals nationwide that rely on this funding.
The N.I.H. has suggested cutting approximately $4 billion in grants allocated for “indirect costs,” defined as ancillary expenses for items such as facilities and administrative staff, which the agency claims could be more effectively utilized for direct research funding. The proposal anticipated narrowing the funding for these indirect costs to a 15 percent rate for all institutions receiving funds, which a government attorney asserted aligned with the practices of private foundations.
However, the group of attorneys representing the states and research institutions contended that direct and indirect costs often overlap.
One attorney prompted Judge Kelley to envision a scenario where a researcher conducts experiments funded by an N.I.H. grant, while another individual handles the disposal of hazardous medical waste resulting from all the ongoing experiments at that facility.
“Both roles are equally essential for the research to proceed,” the lawyer stated. “Research cannot happen without both, yet one is categorized as a direct cost, and the other as an indirect cost.”
The plaintiffs’ lawyers outlined numerous potential negative consequences arising from the funding freeze.
They urged the judge to consider the possible layoffs of skilled staff, including veterinary technicians overseeing animal research and nursing staff in hospitals. They raised concerns about clinical trials for new drugs being halted, and argued that many institutions would struggle to rehire employees they had lost after pausing experiments and trials.
Brian Lea, the lawyer representing the government, remarked on Friday that the sweeping effects discussed during the hearing were largely speculative, characterizing them as part of a “nonspecific aura of urgency” that research institutions had created without providing tangible evidence of damages.
With universities currently in their admissions period, the plaintiff attorneys depicted a tumultuous situation where both academic institutions and Ph.D. candidates would have to reconsider the feasibility of their planned projects. They expressed concern about smaller universities that may not be able to fill the unanticipated budgetary voids.
Even larger universities with substantial endowments had already made significant investments based on expected government funding, the plaintiff lawyers argued.
They cited a $200 million neuroscience facility at the California Institute of Technology, completed in 2020, which the university had anticipated partially funding through government grants.
“There will be a substantial gap in Caltech’s research budget,” one lawyer stated.
The plaintiff attorneys noted that other organizations not directly involved in the lawsuit, such as associations of dental and nursing schools, had also become concerned about the outcome, fearing disruptions to their own operations.
“Are you prepared to acknowledge that the plaintiffs will experience harm?” Judge Kelley inquired of the government’s attorney following the lengthy enumeration of examples presented by the suing groups.
“Not irreparable,” Mr. Lea responded.
He mentioned that the states and associations involved in the lawsuit had other avenues to reclaim lost funds, such as pursuing claims under the Tucker Act, which permits lawsuits against the government for contract disputes. He added that the 15 percent cap was consistent with standards established by private foundations like the Gates Foundation.
Earlier, Mr. Lea reiterated the government’s position that limiting “indirect funds,” which cover expenses for infrastructure, utilities, and support personnel, to 15 percent was intended solely to redirect more funding to researchers.
“I want to emphasize one point from the beginning: This is not a reduction in grant funding,” he stated. “This is about reallocating funding, which falls squarely within the executive’s authority.”
Lawyers opposing the cuts claimed that imposing a blanket 15 percent cap on indirect funds was arbitrary and could be contested. They argued that institutions of different sizes have varying requirements when dealing with the government, and enforcing a universal 15 percent cap was unreasonable.
“Much of this is influenced by economies of scale,” one attorney pointed out. “Larger institutions typically have bigger facilities that can accommodate multiple projects, which will affect their ratio of direct to indirect costs,” she said.