The US Supreme Court on Thursday released its opinion regarding the application for stay in the case National Institute of Health (NIH) v. American Public Health Association (APHA), et al. In a 5-4 vote, the justices paused the lower court’s order, which required the government agency to continue making the grant payments.

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump at the beginning of his term, entitled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” instructed several agency heads to end their DEI programs, including the NIH. The NIH had released internal guidance documents to comply with this executive order, stating that “the agency will not fund research related to DEI objectives, gender identity, or COVID–19. Nor will it continue the practice of awarding grants to researchers based on race.”

As a result, 16 states and the APHA went to the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts and argued that the termination of the grants effected by the ending of DEI programming violated both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). US District Judge William Young agreed with states and APHA, saying that “a new administration certainly is entitled to make changes—even unpopular or unwise changes”–it cannot “undertake actions that are not reasonable and not reasonably explained.”

This case comes to the Supreme Court after US Solicitor General D. John Sauer sought emergency relief on July 24, asking the justices to halt Judge Young’s order following the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s refusal to do so. He cited a prior Supreme Court ruling that emphasized such contract-related disputes with the federal government belong in the Court of Federal Claims, not in district court.

In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Barrett explained that challenges to NIH’s internal guidance fall under the APA and properly belong in district court, while disputes over terminated grants are contract-based and must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. She emphasized that these are legally distinct claims that require separate judicial forums, even if they arise from related facts.