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