Cases & Developments

Temporary Restraining Order Granted. Plaintiffs, the States of Colorado, Rhode Island, California, Minnesota, Washington, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia requested an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) following the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminating $11 billion of public health funding on March 24, 2025. Plaintiffs allege that if funding is not restored, key public health programs and initiatives that address ongoing and emerging public health needs within the plaintiff jurisdictions will have to be dissolved or disbanded, resulting in serious harm to public health. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ abrupt termination of funding was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and contrary to law as defendants unlawfully applied “for cause” provision to terminate the grants since the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) does not authorize the end of the pandemic as a ground for termination and none of the appropriations at issue were scheduled to terminate at the conclusion of the pandemic. Plaintiffs allege all public health terminations are in violation of APA as they are arbitrary and capricious by way of failing to undertake any individualized assessments of the grants and ignoring the substantial reliance interests of plaintiff states and the harmful impact of immediately terminating without any advance warning, as well as having departed significantly from the normal procedures for issuance of the public health terminations. Finding favor of plaintiffs, the Court granted the TRO and restrained defendants from implementing or enforcing funding terminations that were issued to plaintiffs on or after March 24, 2025.

Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction. Following the issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction on the Supplemental Guidance (Notice) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Court entered a permanent injunction, finding that plaintiffs demonstrated success on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims that the issuance of the Notice: (1) violated C.F.R. § 75.414 and Section 224 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act; (2) was arbitrary and capricious; (3) failed to follow notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) was impermissibly retroactive. Further, the Court ruled that the Court of Federal Claims does not have exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims under the Tucker Act, and defendants are thus enjoined from taking any steps to implement, apply, or enforce the February 7, 2025, Notice, which is effectively vacated. 

Per Curium Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ Application for a Stay Pending Appeal. Following the issuance of the March 10, 2025, temporary restraining order (TRO) by the U.S. District of Massachusetts, which enjoined the Government from terminating various education-related grants, as well as required payment of past-due grant obligations and continued payment on obligations as they accrue, plaintiffs (the Government) appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that although TROs are not normally appealable, the District Court’s order “carries many of the hallmarks of a preliminary injunction” thus allowing it to weigh in. The Court found that the Government is likely to succeed in showing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); stating “the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply ‘if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”’ Finding in favor of the Government, the Court explained that the APA’s limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders “to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money” contrasting with the District Court’s judgment. The Court reasoned that defendants would not suffer irreparable harm while the TRO is stayed as they have represented that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running. Finally, in stating that the District Court likely lacked jurisdiction under the APA to order monetary payments, and that “instead, the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on ‘any express or implied contract with the United States’” the Court granted the application for a stay pending appeal in a 5-4 decision. 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the States of California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin allege that the federal administration defendants “have engaged in a concerted, and multi-pronged effort to disrupt [National Institutes of Health]’s grants.” Specifically, plaintiffs challenge delays in the review and approval of otherwise-fundable grant applications and widespread terminations of already-issued grants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by unlawfully withholding and/or creating an unreasonable delay of agency action as to study sections and advisory councils and delayed both applications and renewals. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants violated the APA as their agency action is contrary to regulation and statute and are arbitrary and capricious in relation to terminated grants. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants have violated separation of powers due to the delayed applications, renewals, and terminated grants. Finally, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the spending clause by terminating grants, without fair notice, and the delays and termination are not related to the federal interest in NIH research, and instead, are related to “policies and political factors.” Plaintiffs (1) seek preliminary and permanent injunctions, compelling defendants to undertake the activities of NIH’s advisory councils and study sections that defendants have unlawfully withhold and/or unreasonably delayed with respect to the delayed applications; (2) demand a prompt review of, and issuance of a final decision on, the delayed applications and delayed renewals; and (3) ask the court to hold unlawful, set aside, and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction barring defendants from carrying out, their withdrawal of notices of funding opportunity, bar defendants from carrying out their purported terminations of the grants, and finally, issue a declaration that defendants’ treatment of the delayed applications, renewals, notices of funding opportunity, and terminated grants is unconstitutional. 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the Association for Education Finance and Policy, Inc. and the Institute for Higher Education Policy allege that the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department) decision to terminate the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) impedes plaintiff members’ ability to continue their work, and such action is ultra vires, violates statutory directives, and reflects a failure to engage in reasoned decision making. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions to terminate IES’s performance of its statutory functions exceed their authority and usurp legislative authority conferred on Congress. Plaintiffs further allege defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as their actions are contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and violated both the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act. Plaintiffs ask the Court to (1) declare defendants’ actions terminating IES’s performance of statutorily mandated activities and impounding funds that IES would otherwise use to pay salaries, operating costs, and contract and grant obligations as unlawful; (2) declare unlawful and set aside defendants’ mass termination of contracts, reduction in force, and termination of remote restricted-use data licenses, as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and (3) order defendants to take the steps to restore terminated contracts that execute statutorily mandated tasks or enable the agency to do so, and issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing defendants to immediately cease actions to inhibit IES’s operations.