The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the Trump administration to immediately resume its rollback of nearly $800 million in federal research grants tied to diversity and gender identity initiatives, as Newsmax reports.

The high court's decision permits the administration to enforce executive orders curbing federal support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) across National Institutes of Health programs while legal battles continue.

The ruling lifts an earlier block imposed by U.S. District Judge William Young, who had halted the grant cuts while lawsuits challenging their legality moved forward. In June, Judge Young said the actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services through the NIH were not consistent with statutory obligations and described them as lacking rational justification.

Trump order targets DEI funding

The cuts stem from executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in January, which aimed to eliminate what the administration characterized as “low-value and off-mission” projects. The directives focused on eliminating government funding for DEI-related programs and research tied to gender identity, COVID-19 response, and vaccine skepticism.

In response to these orders, the NIH began cancelling grants it determined to fall under those categories. As the world’s largest source of biomedical research funding, changes to NIH programs could have widespread ripple effects through the public health and scientific communities.

The targeted cuts amount to $783 million in terminated projects. These include funding for studies on breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and other conditions said to disproportionately affect communities of color and other marginalized groups.

Lawsuits seek legal protections

Two major lawsuits were filed in the wake of the NIH's decisions. One was brought by the American Public Health Association alongside individual researchers, while the other came from a group of 16 states, most led by Democratic governors, arguing that the cancellations were unlawful.

The plaintiffs contended that the administration sought to eliminate entire categories of research based on what they described as “vague, now-forbidden language.” They argued that the defunding represented a direct ideological attack on scientific independence and federally mandated inclusion efforts in research.

The grant terminations also included programs mandated by Congress to increase diversity in biomedical research fields. Plaintiffs claimed that the administration was disregarding statutory directives in favor of ideological goals.

Lower courts push back prior to SCOTUS intervention

In June, Judge Young ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the government’s basis for ending the grants was deeply flawed and legally insufficient. He called the NIH's action “breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious.”

When the administration sought emergency relief, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the lower court’s ruling. This left the grant funding temporarily intact as litigation proceeded.

The administration argued that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction, suggesting the issue belonged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which oversees monetary claims against the government. That argument did not persuade the appellate court, prompting the administration to appeal directly to the high court.

High court greenlights administration moves

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Department of Justice, permitting the NIH to resume its implementation of Trump’s executive orders. This grants the administration authority to cancel grants even while lawsuits continue in lower courts.

Thursday’s decision is consistent with an earlier move by the justices in April, when they allowed administration cuts to teacher training grants that also fell under DEI-focused programs. Both actions reflect the Supreme Court’s increasing alignment with the Trump administration’s policy prerogatives since his return to office in January.

Since then, the 6–3 conservative-majority court has sided with executive branch positions in nearly every case implicating Trump’s regulatory and budgetary agenda.

Critics decry potential impact

Scientists and health organizations have expressed concern over the disruption caused by the sudden loss of funding. Many of the terminated projects were years in development and, according to their supporters, addressed urgent health disparities across vulnerable populations.

Training grants tied to promoting diversity among early-career researchers were also among those defunded. Supporters of these programs argue that cutting them diminishes the pipeline of underrepresented groups in biomedical sciences.

As litigation continues, the future of these programs remains uncertain. With high court approval to proceed, the administration is expected to accelerate implementation of the grant reductions in the coming weeks.