Cases & Developments

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Request for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiffs, the State of Rhode Island, State of New York, State of Hawai‘i, State of Arizona, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, People of the State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of Oregon, State of Vermont, State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin are requesting injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against defendants Donald J. Trump, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Keith Sonderling, Minority Business and Development Agency, Madiha D. Latif, Howard Lutnick, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Gregory Goldstein, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and Russell T. Vought. Plaintiffs allege that on March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (the “Closure Order”) that directed the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and four other agencies to eliminate every one of their programs and components not mandated by statute, and to reduce their statutorily mandated functions and associated staff to the minimum required by law. Plaintiffs are particularly concerned about the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (FMCS) being unable to operate, and thus inflicting immediate and irreparable harm to plaintiff states, and the states rely on IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS to support their public libraries and museums, assist state entities in extending contracting opportunities to disadvantaged individuals, and prevent and resolve public-sector labor disputes involving State entities. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging such actions are arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, are contrary to law, and lacked notice and comment. They also claim defendants have violated the appropriations clause, separation of powers doctrine, usurped legislative authority, violated the take care clause, and allege equitable ultra vires. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that the Closure Order and related decisions are unlawful and/or unconstitutional because they violate the APA and/or United States Constitution; postpone the effective date of and vacate the closure decisions; and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendants from implementing the Closure Order and related decisions. 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the American Public Health Association, IBIS Reproductive Health, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers along with several researchers from Harvard allege that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Directives that were drafted to terminate a large number of grants and refuse to consider certain categories of pending grant applications is in conflict with constitutional, statutory, and regulatory requirements. Plaintiffs allege that NIH has failed to state any proper ground for termination under governing law, and as a result, plaintiffs have suffered extensive harm, including loss of research, jobs, staff, and income. Plaintiffs allege over $2.4 billion is at stake from recent grant purges, $1.3 billion wasted from projects that were stopped midstream, and $1.1 billion plaintiffs and others have acted in reliance on that has now been revoked. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as their actions are arbitrary and capricious as the termination letters failed to explain how any specific study failed to meet agency priorities and was merely boilerplate and conclusory language. Plaintiffs allege defendants are in further violation of the APA as they are not in accordance with the law, as NIH’s termination are not based on any evidence regarding the specific grants, and pursuant to OMB Uniform Guidelines, fail to clearly and unambiguously specify all termination provisions in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants’ actions are violation of separation of powers and exceed statutory authority and are contrary to Constitutional Right as the directives are unlawfully vague. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have unlawfully withheld funding and created unreasonable delay by failing to oblige by NIH policy requirements or considering the risks if funding is abruptly halted for participating research patients. Plaintiffs request the Court to declare the Directives as unlawful, declare the termination of grants in this manner as unlawful, order defendants to end their arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, and unlawful actions, and finally, order defendants to restore funding to the terminated NIH grants.  

Memorandum and Order Issuing a Nationwide Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the states of Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawai’i, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin seek injunctive relief against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) following the issuance of supplemental Guidance (Rate Change Notice), which lowered previously negotiated indirect cost rates to a flat 15% for all institutions receiving funding from NIH, including institutions of higher education, and that applied to both new and existing grants. Following the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on February 10, 2025, a hearing was conducted regarding the request for a preliminary injunction. The Court, in coming to its conclusion, relied on the immeasurable and irreparable harm from loss in research, as well as the consequences of such research on participants in clinical trials, deeming the loss as “catastrophic” due to concerns for both patient care and trial validity. Additionally, the Court relied upon Defendants’ failure to follow notice and comment procedures, as well as additional regulatory mandates, such as failing to provide any requisite documented justification. Considering irreparable harm likely to befall similarly situated nonparties, the Court reasoned that “the chaos that would result both from institutions and NIH from a patchwork of injunctions, the diffuse nature of the plaintiffs, and the nature of the suit, a nationwide preliminary injunction is the appropriate and reasonable remedy.”