US federal judge blocks broader funding threats to University of California system News
Marincyclist, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
US federal judge blocks broader funding threats to University of California system

A US federal judge on Friday issued a broad preliminary injunction expanding on her earlier order restoring more than $500 million in federal research grants to UCLA. The new ruling blocks the federal government from using a broader “Task Force Policy” to pressure the entire University of California (UC) system with funding suspensions and coercive settlement demands.

This decision builds directly on the court’s September order, which held that federal agencies likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act when they suspended nearly all UCLA science grants without individualized explanation. In that earlier ruling, the court ordered the government to reinstate the awards and report its compliance, emphasizing that blanket funding terminations are unlawful.

Reviewing new evidence, Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California also found that federal officials opened investigations into multiple UC campuses, indefinitely canceled funding to UCLA, and demanded $1.2 billion and far‑reaching policy changes in exchange for restoring grant money. The court described these actions as part of a coordinated policy that imposed unconstitutional conditions on academic institutions.

In its 76‑page order, the court concluded that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their First Amendment claims, determining that the federal government used the threat of massive funding withdrawal to coerce campus speech and retaliate against protected expression. The court also held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their various claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), which authorizes courts to set aside arbitrary agency actions, capricious, or those that are an abuse of discretion, or those that are otherwise not in accordance with the law.

The judge emphasized that these federal actions caused “irreparable harm.” Citing affidavits from researchers and administrators, the court found that the cancellations disrupted ongoing projects, jeopardized long‑term scientific work, and triggered widespread chilling effects in classrooms, laboratories, and shared governance bodies throughout the UC system.

The court also rejected the defendants’ requests for a bond and a temporary stay. It imposed only a $100 nominal bond under Rule 65(c), finding that a higher amount would impede the plaintiffs’ access to relief. The judge further denied a stay pending appeal, holding that the defendants had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury. Because the Task Force Policy targeted the UC system as a whole, the court held that injunctive relief must extend system‑wide. A separate order will outline the vacatur and terms of the preliminary injunction.

THIS DAY @ LAW

American colonists throw tea into Boston harbor in protest of Britain-imposed tea tax

A group of American colonists known as the "Sons of Liberty" boarded an East India Company ship carrying tea disguised as Native Americans on December 16, 1773, throwing the cargo overboard in protest of the British Parliament's taxes on tea imported by Americans. The protest would result in five acts of Parliament known as the "Intolerable Acts," including the Boston Port Act, which closed Boston Harbor to all ships. Read an eyewitness account of the Boston Tea Party.

President Truman proclaims state of emergency in response to China entry into Korea War

On December 16, 1950, US President Harry S. Truman proclaimed a national state of emergency during the Korean War in response to Chinese intervention.