Gorsuch Warns Lower Courts After Repeatedly Ignoring Supreme Court Rulings
Supreme Court NIH DEI Grants Ruling Favors Administration
The Supreme Court NIH DEI grants ruling delivered a narrow victory for the administration of Donald Trump. The decision allowed the government to cut millions of dollars in federal research grants.
The case involved funding from the National Institutes of Health. The agency is the world’s largest public source of biomedical research funding.
Justice Gorsuch Criticizes Lower Courts
Neil Gorsuch strongly criticized lower courts during the ruling. He said some judges repeatedly defied decisions from the nation’s highest court.
Gorsuch wrote that the Supreme Court had reversed lower courts several times recently. He said judges may disagree but cannot ignore Supreme Court rulings.
He was joined in the opinion by Brett Kavanaugh. Both justices argued that lower courts must respect the judicial hierarchy.
Details of the Supreme Court NIH DEI Grants Ruling
The Supreme Court NIH DEI grants ruling passed with a 5–4 vote. It allowed the administration to end funding linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
The affected grants supported projects related to DEI initiatives, gender identity research, and COVID-19 topics. After the ruling, NIH will no longer award grants based on race or DEI objectives.
The case began after a Massachusetts federal judge ordered payments to continue. That order came despite an earlier Supreme Court ruling allowing similar cuts.
Role of Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett cast the deciding vote in the case. She joined conservative justices to terminate the research grants.
However, Barrett also sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and three liberal justices on another part of the case. That decision allowed a lower court ruling to remove certain NIH policy guidance.
The liberal justices included Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The split decision created a complex outcome in the case.
Gorsuch Points to Other Court Conflicts
Gorsuch said the conflict with lower courts was not an isolated event. He pointed to two other recent cases where district courts resisted Supreme Court orders.
In July, the Court ruled 7–2 to block a district court attempt to override a deportation decision. That ruling allowed the administration to resume third-country deportations.
Even Justice Kagan, who had dissented earlier, supported enforcing the order. She wrote that district courts cannot compel compliance with stayed rulings.
Additional Legal Disputes
The Court also struck down another lower court ruling involving the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That decision involved attempts to block the president from firing three commissioners.
Earlier in May, the Supreme Court had already granted authority to remove members of administrative agencies. The later ruling reinforced that earlier decision.
Gorsuch said these repeated interventions should have been unnecessary. However, he said they showed the importance of respecting the federal court hierarchy.
Background on DEI Policy Changes
Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has issued executive orders ending several DEI programs. He described those programs as discriminatory.
In April, the Court upheld the administration’s authority to cut teacher training grants connected to DEI programs. Gorsuch said the Massachusetts court ignored that precedent.
Impact of the Supreme Court NIH DEI Grants Ruling
The Supreme Court NIH DEI grants ruling immediately halted the affected funding. The administration is likely to view the outcome as another legal victory.
In a separate opinion, Barrett said the case should have been filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. That court handles disputes involving federal contracts.
Lower Court Decision Reversed
The ruling reversed an order by U.S. District Judge William Young. Young had ordered the NIH to restore the grants in June.
The lawsuits were filed by researchers and 16 Democratic-led states. They argued that ending the funding amounted to discrimination.
Young criticized the policy in strong language during his ruling. He said the decision affected racial and LGBTQ-related research funding.
