âť“WHAT HAPPENED: The United States Supreme Court has moved to overturn a lower court’s ruling that blocked $783 million in cuts made by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Supreme Court, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 16 Democratic state attorneys general, U.S. District Court Judge William Young, and the Trump administration.
đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: August, 2025, with litigation ongoing.
đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “All these interventions should have been unnecessary. When this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch
🎯IMPACT: The ruling will likely encourage further emergency appeals by the Trump White House—most importantly in a handful of lower court cases where judges appear to have ignored a Supreme Court ruling significantly narrowing the use of nationwide injunctions.
The United States Supreme Court has moved to overturn a lower court’s ruling that blocked $783 million in cuts made by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In an unusual move, the high court was very vocal in chastising U.S. District Court Judge William Young for having ignored a previous Supreme Court precedent from April. Sixteen Democratic state attorneys general initially brought the case.
“All these interventions should have been unnecessary,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. “When this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” The 5-4 ruling marks a significant win for President Donald J. Trump‘s efforts to cut government spending and federal waste, fraud, and abuse.
Despite the win on nearly $1 billion in grant cuts, the Supreme Court’s ruling wasn’t a total victory for the Trump administration. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with Chief Justice John Roberts and the high court’s three liberal justices in upholding the part of Judge Young’s order that blocked President Trump’s directives to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at the NIH.
Outside the ruling’s immediate impact on federal grants, it is notable that the majority opinion focused on the lower court’s ignoring of Supreme Court precedent. This is likely to encourage further emergency appeals by the Trump White House—most importantly in a handful of lower court cases where judges appear to have ignored a Supreme Court ruling significantly narrowing the use of nationwide injunctions.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
