Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered a pointed rebuke to lower federal courts Thursday, accusing them of failing to adhere to Supreme Court precedents in a sharply divided 5–4 decision that handed the Trump administration a significant victory on federal research funding.
The high court ruled that the administration may halt millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants connected to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender identity research, and certain COVID-19-related studies. In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Gorsuch expressed growing frustration with lower courts’ repeated resistance to the Supreme Court’s directives.
“This marks the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to reverse a lower court on an issue it had already addressed,” Gorsuch wrote. He emphasized that while individual judges may disagree with the Supreme Court’s rulings, they remain obligated to follow them rather than disregard or evade them.
The dispute originated when a federal judge in Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge William Young, ordered the NIH to continue funding the contested grants. Young ruled that the cuts amounted to unlawful discrimination against racial minorities and LGBTQ communities. Democratic attorneys general and public health organizations had challenged the administration’s actions, arguing they improperly targeted specific research areas.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett cast the pivotal vote in the majority, joining conservative colleagues Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. However, Barrett also aligned with Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — in upholding a lower-court ruling that struck down certain NIH guidance documents outlining the agency’s policy priorities.
The decision overturns Judge Young’s order and reinforces the administration’s authority to redirect federal research dollars. Since returning to the White House in 2025, President Donald Trump has issued multiple executive orders aimed at dismantling DEI programs established under the previous administration, framing them as divisive and ideologically driven.
Legal observers say the ruling highlights persistent tensions between the Supreme Court and segments of the lower federal judiciary over the proper application of precedent. It represents the latest in a series of judicial wins for the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape federal spending priorities away from initiatives emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The case underscores broader debates over executive authority, scientific funding, and the role of federal courts in checking administrative actions. Supporters of the decision argue it restores neutrality to taxpayer-funded research, while critics contend it threatens vital public health studies and promotes political interference in science.
