Press Release: 1/7/2026
Federal Appeals Court Hears Case Challenging NIH Grant Terminations
Case: APHA v. NIH
January 6, 2026 3:13 pm
Spokespeople
Media Contact
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
United States
BOSTON — Oral argument was held today before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in a lawsuit challenging the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) mass termination of research grants on topics and populations disfavored by the Trump administration. The appeal follows the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ determination that NIH’s grant terminations and underlying policy directives were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Today, plaintiffs urged the First Circuit to uphold the district court’s judgment that NIH relied on unlawful directives to abruptly terminate hundreds of research grants without engaging in the reasoned decision-making and explanation required by federal law.
Plaintiffs also presented arguments that the federal district court had jurisdiction over their challenge to NIH’s grant terminations. That jurisdictional question arises in the wake of the Supreme Court’s earlier emergency-docket decision, which issued a partial stay but left intact the district court’s determination that NIH’s directives were unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Below are quotes from clients and co-counsel:
“These research projects take years to develop, and funding is awarded only after rigorous review, so it was devastating when the federal government threw out the rulebook and canceled our grants for purely ideological reasons. The First Circuit must uphold the District Court's ruling and make clear that arbitrary actions are unlawful and deeply destructive to scientific progress and public health,” said plaintiff Brittany Charlton, associate professor at Harvard Medical School.
“NIH’s reckless actions threaten to undermine decades of scientific progress, disrupt critical research on health disparities, and compromise public health outcomes. These terminations were not grounded in science but driven by political ideology that has no place in biomedical research,” said Rachel Meeropol, senior counsel in the American Civil Liberties Union’s Racial Justice Program, who argued the case today. “The district court correctly found that NIH’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and we urged the First Circuit to uphold that judgment.”
“As we argued in court today, these ideologically driven grant terminations undermine scientific progress and violate federal law,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “We urge the First Circuit to uphold the District Court’s judgment, as the strength of this country’s research prowess rests on the application of a clearly articulated grant review process that is guided by science rather than political ideology.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Civil Liberties
APHA v. NIH
APHA v. NIH is a legal challenge to the unprecedented and ideologically-driven purge of hundreds of biomedical research projects by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Years of research on a wide span of critical health issues has been abruptly cancelled, as have grants and programs designed to address the underrepresentation of racial minorities, women, and economically disadvantaged scientists in the biomedical field.
Status: Ongoing