Researchers and Public Health Association Sue NIH Over Terminated Grants

The American Public Health Association, along with a group of esteemed researchers, has initiated legal action against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including agency leaders Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The plaintiffs aim to overturn and prevent additional terminations of federally funded research grants.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 2, the lawsuit asserts that multiple research grants have been unlawfully discontinued. The alleged funding cuts amount to more than $2.4 billion, with $1.3 billion having already been allocated to projects that were abruptly halted and an additional $1.1 billion rescinded, which plaintiffs argue was done without legal justification.

The lawsuit is backed by four accomplished researchers, the American Public Health Association, recognized as the nation’s largest association of public health professionals, and the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.

Plaintiff Brittany Charlton, an associate professor at Harvard Chan School of Public Health, voiced concerns about the repercussions of these funding cuts in a statement released on April 2. Charlton emphasized that discontinuing NIH grants results in squandered taxpayer funds and the loss of years of scientific work aimed at addressing critical biomedical challenges. She described these actions as an impediment to scientific advancement.

This legal challenge is distinct from three other federal lawsuits filed in February, which contest an NIH policy imposing restrictions on “indirect costs” for research grants. In this newly filed complaint, the plaintiffs contend that the NIH acted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to adhere to standard protocols and neglecting to provide a scientific basis for its decisions. Additionally, they argue that the agency exceeded its authority by disregarding congressional directives to finance research on health disparities and ensure diverse representation in medical studies.

Further allegations in the lawsuit claim that the NIH has contravened the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause by revoking grants based on ambiguous and non-transparent criteria. The complaint also highlights concerns that the agency has withdrawn funding for research that does not align with President Donald Trump’s executive orders, specifically studies related to LGBTQ+ health, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as projects with potential implications for researchers in China.

Dr. Peter Lurie, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest and a plaintiff in the case, expressed deep apprehension over the agency’s decisions. Lurie had previously advised on an NIH-funded study assessing the effects of preventive HIV medication accessibility. According to the lawsuit, the NIH terminated the study’s funding because it no longer aligned with the agency’s priorities, despite documented evidence highlighting the significant benefits of preventive HIV treatment for transgender women.

Lurie warned that limiting research parameters in this manner effectively dictates which medical inquiries can be pursued, which discoveries remain unexplored, and which patient populations receive medical attention. He cautioned that if these terminations persist, they could have dire consequences for those reliant on federal research for conditions such as HIV, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes.

This legal battle is part of a broader pattern of challenges to recent federal decisions concerning research funding. Following President Trump’s inauguration, the administration launched an initiative to significantly reduce NIH grant expenditures, particularly those covering “indirect costs” like infrastructure, equipment, and administrative support.

The Association of American Medical Colleges, in collaboration with several academic and medical organizations, filed a lawsuit against the NIH in a Massachusetts federal court in early February. In addition, twenty-two states and various universities have brought separate legal challenges against the agency’s funding decisions in the same jurisdiction.

A federal judge later issued an injunction preventing reductions in grant payments while litigation is ongoing, yet the NIH has continued to revoke funding for projects nationwide. The NIH, which has historically managed an annual budget of nearly $48 billion and is the leading global financier of biomedical research, faces mounting opposition from the scientific community. Approximately 1,900 researchers, including faculty from all Ivy League institutions and multiple Nobel laureates, have signed a public appeal urging the Trump administration to halt what they describe as an overarching assault on American scientific research. These scientists caution that the long-term impact on the nation’s research infrastructure may take decades to repair.

Both the NIH and HHS have stated that they do not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.