Cases & Developments

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.  

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.