The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, allowed the Trump administration to move forward with cutting $783 million in NIH research funding aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, reversing a lower court order that had temporarily blocked these cuts.

The decision was driven by the court's conservative majority, which emphasized that disputes over federal funding should be handled in the Court of Federal Claims, not through emergency appeals or lower courts.

The ruling drew support from justices like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who stressed respect for prior rulings on jurisdiction and argued that the lower courts lacked proper authority to intervene.

Chief Justice Roberts and other conservative justices expressed concerns that vacating the guidance documents and grant decisions could have broader legal implications, reinforcing the court's stance on judicial jurisdiction.

Opponents, including 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health groups, argued that the cuts would cause significant setbacks to public health and scientific progress, especially in research targeting minority health issues.

Legal challenges from multiple states and research organizations had previously criticized the cuts as discriminatory and arbitrary, with some courts describing the actions as harmful to ongoing research and public health.

The court's decision indicates that challenges to the funding cuts must be filed separately in the Court of Federal Claims, and that other related cases should be handled there, not through emergency appeals.

The ruling also referenced a previous case involving the Department of Education, asserting that lower courts lacked jurisdiction to order the government to make payments on research grants.

This legal battle underscores ongoing debates over federal administrative authority, judicial jurisdiction, and the political influence on scientific and public health funding.

The decision continues a pattern of the Supreme Court supporting the administration’s policies, including previous rulings that allowed cuts to programs related to diversity initiatives and teacher training grants.

While the court upheld the authority to proceed with the cuts, it did not mandate the immediate release of funds, leaving open the possibility for further legal challenges.

The case highlights the broader ideological and legal conflicts surrounding federal funding priorities, with critics warning of potential harm to scientific progress and public health efforts.