Key Takeaways:
- 1. Court ruling in Trump v. Casa blocked national injunction against illegal activity, limiting protection to parties involved in the case.
- 2. The ruling questions the termination of grants violating the Administrative Procedures Act’s requirement of non-arbitrary decisions.
- 3. Judge Young criticizes NIH’s grant cancellations linked to undefined concepts like diversity, equity, and inclusion, citing lack of clear guidelines.
The court ruling in Trump v. Casa restricts protection to parties involved, raising concerns over the legality of grant terminations by the government. Judge Young questions the NIH's decisions, criticizing them for lacking clear definitions of terms like diversity, equity, and inclusion. He notes a lack of consistency in defining these terms, highlighting the confusion among NIH staff in identifying grants to terminate and accusing DOGE of making decisions for the NIH.
Insight: The article highlights the legal and procedural issues surrounding the termination of grants by the government, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines and non-arbitrary decision-making to avoid legal challenges and confusion among staff.
This article was curated by memoment.jp from the feed source: Ars Technica.
Read the original article here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/07/doge-told-the-nih-which-grants-to-cancel-with-no-scientific-review/
© All rights belong to the original publisher.
