The highest court in the land should be stable and fair. But not everyone agrees.
And now a Supreme Court Justice went off the rails to accuse her colleagues of a shocking crime.
Supreme Court Permits Trump Administration to Cancel $783M in NIH Grants, Prompting Fiery Dissent from Justice Jackson
The Supreme Court, in a pair of 5-4 rulings on August 21, 2025, allowed the Trump administration to proceed with terminating approximately $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, reversing a lower court’s order that had restored funding for over 1,700 research projects.
The decision, which permits the cancellation of grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), gender identity, and COVID-19 research, was met with a 21-page dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused the majority of engaging in “Calvinball jurisprudence” designed to ensure “this administration always wins,” per Politico.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson—in dissenting against the grant cancellations, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s split vote upheld a lower court’s block on the NIH’s broader guidance for future terminations.
Case Background and Court Rulings
The case stemmed from the Trump administration’s February 2025 decision to halt NIH grants deemed misaligned with its priorities, following executive orders targeting DEI and related initiatives.
U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, had blocked the cuts in June, citing “palpable” racial discrimination and violations of administrative law, per PBS News.
The Supreme Court’s majority, led by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett, ruled that challenges to the grant terminations belong in the Court of Federal Claims due to their contractual nature, though Barrett joined the liberal justices and Roberts to maintain the lower court’s injunction against the NIH’s funding guidance.
Jackson argued the ruling creates a “futile, multivenue quest” for plaintiffs, risking the loss of critical research on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, and mental health, with potential consequences including the euthanasia of animal subjects and closure of community clinics, per Courthouse News Service.
Broader Implications and Reactions
The decision, part of the court’s emergency docket, reflects ongoing legal battles over the Trump administration’s policies, with 18 emergency appeals granted at least partially in its favor since January 2025, per The Hill.
Jackson’s dissent criticized the court’s “recent tendencies” to favor the administration, likening its approach to Calvinball—a game with no fixed rules—while Barrett defended the jurisdictional split, arguing that federal district courts lack authority over contract disputes, per Forbes.
The ruling is not final, with an appeal pending in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs, including 16 Democratic-led states and health organizations, warn of irreparable harm to scientific progress, per Newsweek.
