In August 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made it harder for health researchers to restore NIH grants that were canceled under the Trump administration’s new funding directives. In National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, the Court said challenges to the government’s broader guidance can likely still move forward in federal district court, but claims at getting terminated grant funding back belong in the Court of Federal Claims instead. That means many researchers may have to fight on two fronts just to challenge one set of decisions, creating a slower and more complicated path for restoring research that can improve and save lives.

What is NIH v. APHA and Why Does it Matter?

This case is about whether researchers can go to go court when the federal government suddenly changes course and cancels already-awarded health research grants.

That may sound technical, but the stakes are high. In early 2025, the NIH issued internal guidance saying it would no longer fund research tied to topics the administration opposed, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) objectives, gender identity, and COVID-19. The NIH then terminated almost 2,000 grants that had already been funded for research related to those topics. The Supreme Court’s ruling affects how researchers can challenge those actions and how difficult it will be to get funding restored when grants are cut off.

What Happened in NIH v. APHA?

Researchers and organizations including the American Public Health Association sued in federal district court in Massachusetts after the NIH abruptly canceled grants and issued guidance directing institutes to stop funding certain research. The plaintiffs argued that the guidance and the grant terminations were unlawful.

The District Court judge sided with the plaintiffs, finding the agency’s actions unlawful and “arbitrary and capricious.” The defendants then appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and asked the court to stop (or “stay”) the District Court’s order while the appeal moved forward. The First Circuit refused, finding the defendants hadn’t shown it was likely to win an appeal. The federal government then went to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket and asked the justices to block the lower court’s order. Because this came through the emergency process, there was no oral argument before the Court acted.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in NIH v. APHA?

The Supreme Court granted the federal government’s request in part and denied it in part. The justices allowed the legal challenge to the NIH’s guidance to continue, but they said the District Court didn’t have jurisdiction to order relief tied to the terminated grants themselves. In practical terms, that means researchers who want the grants reinstated have to pursue that part of the fight in the Court of Federal Claims rather than in District Court.

That split matters because the two courts offer different kinds of relief. District Courts can decide whether agency action was unlawful and can issue remedies like blocking unlawful guidance. The Court of Federal Claims, by contrast, is built for money claims against the government. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that this creates what she called a “bizarre claim-splitting regime” that could leave plaintiffs without effective relief at all. Justice Jackson puts a fine point on the consequences of this decision:

“For the Government, the incremental expenditure of money is at stake. For plaintiffs and the public, scientific progress itself hangs in the balance—along with the lives that progress saves. Make no mistake: Per the evidence in front of the District Court, the forward march of scientific discovery will not only be halted—it will be reversed.”

A later agreement required the NIH to give some stalled applications a new, good-faith review, but it didn’t undo the Supreme Court’s ruling on terminated grants. The larger legal fight over the District Court’s decision also continued after oral argument in the First Circuit in January 2026.

Why The Arc Supports Federal Funding for Health Research

The Arc’s position statement on research is clear: applied and basic research related to intellectual and/or developmental disabilities must be adequately funded, designed around topics that matter to people with disabilities and their families, and conducted in ways that improve people’s lives. Research helps promote independence, improve quality of life, strengthen services and supports, and identify better educational, social, and clinical interventions. When the government abruptly cuts off that funding, it doesn’t just disrupt grants. It disrupts knowledge, innovation, and progress for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Why NIH v. APHA Matters for People With Disabilities

This case matters because disability research is part of the larger web of health research that was disrupted. The terminated grants included studies on reproductive decision-making among women with developmental disabilities that affect cognition and a psychosocial intervention for autistic adults who are sexual and gender minorities, along with research related to kidney disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, and HIV.

When research funding stops, research often stops with it. And when the path to restoring that funding becomes slower and more fragmented, fewer researchers may have the time or resources to challenge unlawful terminations. That means less research, less innovation, and less understanding of the health needs of people with disabilities in the future.

Where Can I Learn More About NIH v. APHA?

• Health Affairs article on the Supreme Court’s decision over NIH funding
• ACLU press release on the Supreme Court’s partial stay

NIH v. APHA FAQ: Research Funding, Federal Courts, and Disability Research

What is NIH v. APHA about?

It’s about where researchers can go to court when the NIH cancels already-awarded grants and changes its funding rules.

What did the Supreme Court decide in NIH v. APHA?

The Court said the challenge to the NIH’s guidance can continue in District Court, but claims seeking restoration of terminated grant funding likely belong in the Court of Federal Claims.

Why does NIH v. APHA matter for people with disabilities?

Because disability research is part of the health research affected by these funding cuts, and making grants harder to restore can slow or stop research that people with disabilities depend on.

Written by: Shira Wakschlag, Senior Executive Officer of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel at The Arc of the United States

In Hamm v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a closely watched death penalty case about how courts should evaluate intellectual disability. The case asked whether courts can consider multiple IQ test scores as part of a full clinical assessment when deciding whether a person is intellectually disabled and therefore protected from execution under the Eighth Amendment. In a 5-4 decision issued on May 21, 2026, the Court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices decided they shouldn’t have agreed to hear it in the first place. As a result, the Court didn’t answer the underlying question, leaving uncertainty about how courts should use multiple IQ scores in future death penalty cases involving intellectual disability.

Bottom line: The Supreme Court didn’t decide whether courts can rely on multiple IQ scores when determining intellectual disability in death penalty cases.

What is Hamm v. Smith about?

Before the Supreme Court dismissed the case, Hamm v. Smith asked an important question about how courts determine whether a person has intellectual disability in death penalty cases.

That question matters because the Supreme Court has already ruled that executing a person with an intellectual disability is unconstitutional. In Hamm v. Smith, the issue wasn’t whether that protection exists. It was how courts should apply it. More specifically, the case asked whether courts can consider multiple IQ test scores as part of a full clinical evaluation, or whether they should give too much weight to the numbers alone.

The Court agreed to review “whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.”

Can a state execute a person with an intellectual disability?

No. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the execution of people with intellectual disability. Later decisions reinforced that courts cannot use an overly rigid or outdated approach when deciding whether someone has an intellectual disability. In Hall v. Florida in 2014, the Court rejected a strict cutoff based only on IQ test scores. In Moore v. Texas in 2017, the Court ruled that courts must use clinical standards, not stereotypes or non-clinical assumptions.

Those rulings are consistent with how intellectual disability is actually diagnosed by experts. It’s not determined by an IQ test alone. Clinicians look at the whole picture, including intellectual functioning, adaptive functioning, and whether the disability began during the developmental period. IQ tests can be part of that picture, but they aren’t the whole picture.

A person may take multiple IQ tests throughout their life. Those scores can be helpful, but they don’t replace clinical judgment. Different tests can produce somewhat different results, and an outlier score doesn’t automatically tell the full story. Courts should look at all the relevant evidence, including how a person functions in daily life.

How did Hamm v. Smith reach the Supreme Court?

Joseph Smith was convicted of murder in Alabama in 1997, before the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia. After Atkins, Mr. Smith sought post-conviction relief, arguing that he has intellectual disability and cannot be executed.

In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in his favor. The court considered Mr. Smith’s history of adaptive deficits dating back to grade school, where he was evaluated for special education services. It also considered five IQ tests, four of which had scores in the low-to-mid 70s. The court concluded that the evidence, viewed together, supported a finding of intellectual disability.

Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court. In November 2024, the Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Eleventh Circuit and asked it to clarify how it used Mr. Smith’s multiple IQ scores. The Eleventh Circuit said it had looked holistically at his scores, not by relying on the lowest score alone. Alabama appealed again, and in June 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on a limited question about whether and how courts may consider multiple IQ test scores in an Atkins claim.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Hamm v. Smith?

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court dismissed Hamm v. Smith instead of deciding the question it had agreed to review. The Court’s full order was one sentence: it dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices concluded they shouldn’t have taken it in the first place. As a result, the lower court’s ruling stands, and Joseph Smith remains protected from execution under the Eighth Amendment.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, wrote separately to explain why dismissal was appropriate. She said the case wasn’t the right vehicle for resolving how courts should evaluate multiple IQ scores in death penalty cases. In her view, the parties agreed on an important point: courts can consider multiple IQ scores when determining whether a person has an intellectual disability. She also explained that the lower courts hadn’t actually decided the broader legal rule Alabama wanted the Supreme Court to announce. Because of that, she concluded the Court couldn’t properly answer that question here.

Justice Sotomayor also underscored a key point The Arc raised in its amicus brief: intellectual disability cannot be reduced to IQ scores alone. Citing disability and clinical experts, she wrote that “IQ test scores cannot stand alone” and must be considered alongside other evidence, including adaptive functioning and the person’s day-to-day intellectual functioning.

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that Atkins v. Virginia was wrongly decided.

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Thomas, also dissented, arguing that the Court should have decided this case and given lower courts more guidance on how to use multiple IQ tests going forward.

What is The Arc’s view on intellectual disability and the death penalty?

The Arc’s position is clear: no person with intellectual disability should be executed, and states must use fair, accurate procedures that follow accepted clinical standards when deciding whether a person has an intellectual disability. Here’s more from our position statement on the criminal justice system:

When death penalty is an issue, individuals with intellectual disability… must: Continue to be exempt from the death penalty because existing case-by-case determinations of competence to stand trial, criminal responsibility, and mitigating factors at sentencing have proved insufficient to protect the rights of individuals with intellectual disability; Have access to expert witnesses and professionals who are knowledgeable about, as well as trained and experienced in, intellectual disability and who can accurately determine the presence and effects of intellectual disability; and [h]ave their intellectual disability determined by state procedures that are accurate… state procedures must be consistent with the national standards on making an intellectual disability determination and ensure that people with intellectual disability are not executed.

Since Atkins v. Virginia, The Arc has filed amicus briefs in every U.S. Supreme Court case involving the death penalty and intellectual disability, including Hamm v. Smith. In this case, The Arc argued that IQ tests have a built-in margin of error and cannot replace clinical judgment. Multiple IQ scores can make the analysis more complicated, especially when one score appears to be an outlier.

That’s why courts must look beyond numbers alone and consider the full clinical record, including adaptive functioning and other evidence of intellectual disability.

Why Hamm v. Smith matters for people with disabilities

This case matters because it’s about whether courts will follow science and accepted clinical standards when deciding who is protected from execution.

Intellectual disability is a lifelong condition. It cannot be reduced to a single IQ score. Experts have made clear that diagnosis requires a full evaluation, including intellectual functioning, adaptive functioning, and other evidence over time.

People with intellectual disability are at greater risk of being targeted, pressured, wrongfully convicted, and failed by the criminal legal system. Without fair, accurate, science-based standards, lives are at risk.

This case isn’t about excusing violent crime. People with intellectual disability can still be held accountable under the law. But the Constitution draws a clear line: people with intellectual disability cannot be executed.

Although the Supreme Court dismissed Hamm v. Smith without answering the question it agreed to review, existing constitutional protections remain in place.

Where can I learn more about Hamm v. Smith?

The Arc’s Hamm v. Smith Case Page

Hamm v. Smith FAQ: Intellectual Disability, IQ Scores, and the Death Penalty

Can a person with an intellectual disability be executed?

No. The Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the Constitution prohibits executing people with intellectual disability.

What is Hamm v. Smith about?

The case asked whether courts can solely consider multiple IQ scores when deciding whether a person has an intellectual disability in a death penalty case.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Hamm v. Smith?

In a 5-4 decision on May 21, 2026, the Court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices decided they should not have taken it in the first place.

Why did the Supreme Court dismiss Hamm v. Smith?

A majority of the justices concluded this wasn’t the right case to resolve a broader rule about how courts should weigh multiple IQ scores. Justice Sotomayor wrote that the question Alabama wanted answered had not been properly decided in the lower courts.

Did the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Hamm v. Smith change the rule that people with intellectual disability cannot be executed?

No. The Supreme Court did not overturn Atkins v. Virginia. The constitutional rule remains the same: people with intellectual disability cannot be executed.

Why are IQ scores not enough by themselves?

Because intellectual disability is diagnosed using a full clinical assessment, not one number alone. Courts and clinicians must also consider adaptive functioning and other evidence.

Written by: Evan Monod, Staff Attorney for The Arc of the United States

Update (August 4, 2026): Advocacy is changing the course of Texas v. Kennedy. Indiana withdrew first after months of advocacy from The Arc of Indiana. Kansas followed, after sustained pressure from disability advocates across the state, including The Arc of Douglas County. Now, Missouri has informed advocates it will withdraw after months of pressure from St. Louis Arc, The Arc of the Ozarks, and more than 45 agencies across the state. South Dakota has also withdrawn. Louisiana and Montana aren’t listed on the latest filing, though they haven’t made formal public announcements.

Only three states remain in the case: Alaska, Florida, and Texas.

Texas v. Kennedy is a lawsuit that targets Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 requires that any program or service supported with federal funding be accessible to people with disabilities. This case focuses on the rights of people with disabilities who want to live and get government-financed services in the community instead of being limited to receiving these services in a nursing home or other institutions.

This case has real stakes for millions of people with disabilities. It could weaken protections people rely on to stay in the community with the services they need.

Across these states, The Arc’s chapters are doing what they have always done best. They’re organizing, showing up, and refusing to let this happen quietly.

Texas: Making the stakes impossible to ignore

Texas is the lead plaintiff in Texas v. Kennedy, and advocates are making sure the state can’t push this lawsuit quietly.

The Arc of Texas has helped bring the stakes into public view. They sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking Texas to withdraw, and issued a press release and an action alert urging calls and emails. They also produced a short video to drive public awareness and action.

In July 2026, disability rights advocates gathered at the Texas Capitol to call on Texas to withdraw from the lawsuit. The rally urged Texans to contact Attorney General Paxton’s office and demand that the state stop attacking the integration mandate.

The public pressure is growing. The Arc of Texas has helped generate coverage by Texas Public Radio, KERA News, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Even more importantly, the Attorney General’s office received a significant surge of calls and emails from The Arc’s advocates, so much so that the phone line was intermittently disconnected. With only Texas, Alaska, and Florida remaining in the lawsuit, the pressure on Texas matters even more. Texans must keep calling, keep sharing, and keep demanding that Attorney General Paxton withdraw Texas from the case.

Indiana: A win powered by advocacy

Indiana is no longer part of this lawsuit, and that didn’t happen by accident.

The Arc of Indiana spent months pushing Indiana to back out, including direct conversations with Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and his team about what this case could mean for people with disabilities who rely on community-based services and civil rights protections.

On May 4, 2026, The Arc of Indiana announced that Attorney General Rokita has decided to withdraw Indiana from Texas v. Kennedy. This is exactly what strong grassroots advocacy can do: move a state from being part of the problem to protecting rights.

Kansas: Another state withdraws after disability advocates push back

On June 10, 2026, Kansas withdrew from Texas v. Kennedy, another major sign that public pressure can change the course of this lawsuit. The Arc of Douglas County joined more than 20 Kansas disability organizations in urging Attorney General Kris Kobach to withdraw the state from the case. In a coalition letter, advocates made clear that Kansas’ participation threatened people with disabilities and community-based services. Kansas’ withdrawal shows what happens when disability advocates stay organized and keep the pressure on.

Louisiana: Coalition pressure and continued accountability

The Arc of Louisiana helped build early pressure in the state by convening a coalition, creating a fact sheet, and sharing it widely with legislators, advocacy partners, and the public. They also pressed Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill’s office directly, including following up after Louisiana rejoined the lawsuit.

Louisiana hasn’t made a formal public announcement, but the state is no longer listed on the latest filing in Texas v. Kennedy. That reflects the growing pressure from disability advocates who have made clear that attacking Section 504 and the integration mandate puts people with disabilities at risk.

Missouri: Chapters helped turn pressure into action

Missouri is the latest state to move away from Texas v. Kennedy, after months of advocacy from disability organizations across the state.

St. Louis Arc helped drive public pressure through direct outreach and an action campaign urging Missouri to withdraw. The Arc of the Ozarks was also deeply involved, pushing for answers, raising concerns with state leaders and partners, and working through legislative relationships to keep the issue moving. On July 14, 2026, more than 45 agencies, including chapters of The Arc, signed a letter urging Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway to withdraw. That same day the letter was delivered, advocates were informed Missouri would drop out of the case.

This is what organized advocacy can do. Chapters, providers, families, and disability advocates kept the pressure on until the state changed course.

Alaska and Florida: Building the groundwork

The Arc of Anchorage is working with Alaska’s disability community to coordinate a stronger response. They partnered with the Developmental Disabilities Association, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, and other stakeholders for a planning session, and they’ve reached out to Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox while continuing follow-up to secure a meeting.

The Arc of Florida is pushing for answers at stage agencies.

What you can do right now

If you live in one of the three states still pushing this lawsuit, your call matters.

Call your state Attorney General and say: “Withdraw [STATE] from Texas v. Kennedy. People with disabilities should be able to live in the community with the supports that make life possible, and [STATE] should not be part of a lawsuit that puts that at risk.”

Then take one more step:

• Ask two people in your state to call too.
• Share this blog and tag your Attorney General’s office.

This is how change happens. Public pressure creates consequences, and it changes decisions. Help us protect rights that should never be treated as negotiable.