A federal judge has mandated the Trump administration to reinstate a significant portion of the 800 federal science research grants that were suspended at UCLA last month, marking a pivotal development in an ongoing legal battle.
Judicial rulings in favor of the university’s researchers highlight broader tensions surrounding federal funding and the Trump administration’s commitment to promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Rita F. Lin ruled that the National Science Foundation (NSF) acted unlawfully by suspending grants, asserting that these actions were in violation of her earlier June preliminary injunction. In that injunction, Lin had ordered the NSF to restore 114 grants terminated at the University of California and barred the agency from canceling additional funding across the UC system.
“NSF’s actions violate the Preliminary Injunction,” Lin stated in her ruling.
The original June order followed claims from University of California (UC) researchers that the foundation’s decision to terminate these grants was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to federal law. The terminations were linked to allegations concerning violations of DEI principles, in accordance with several executive orders issued by Trump in January.
The recent ruling from Judge Lin specifically addresses the suspensions of 300 NSF grants and 500 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants at UCLA, which had resulted in a freeze of funding totaling $584 million. While the lawyers representing the researchers are not acting on behalf of the UC system, their advocacy could lead to the full restoration of all 300 suspended NSF grants, as suggested by attorney Claudia Polsky.
Lin has directed both the Trump administration and the UC researchers to provide an update by August 19 regarding the restoration of the grants.
It’s noteworthy that Lin’s latest ruling does not extend to the suspended NIH grants, as they were not included in her initial June order.
These federal grants are essential for university research, enabling scientific advancements, new medicine development, and training for graduate students, ultimately contributing to the U.S.’s stature as a leading nation in scientific inquiry.
The federal government, through its attorneys, contended that suspending the grants at UCLA did not breach the June order since it specifically prohibited terminations but did not address suspensions. However, the UC researchers’ legal team argued that both suspensions and terminations effectively result in a loss of funding, undermining research efforts.
In her ruling, Lin emphasized that the “indefinite suspensions” by the NSF do not represent a tangible difference from terminations, noting that the notifications to UCLA did not provide the necessary, detailed explanations mandated by her earlier injunction.
Judge Lin also acknowledged prior criticisms from federal judges regarding the administration’s lack of clear criteria for determining DEI compliance, despite penalizing universities based on these ambiguous standards.
“Although a new presidential administration is entitled to develop programs with its chosen priorities, the Executive may not set out to suppress ideas it deems dangerous by trying to drive them out of the marketplace of ideas,” Lin asserted in her June order.
The backdrop to this case includes allegations made against UCLA regarding its efforts to address antisemitism. The NSF’s letter dated August 1 asserted that the university was favoring admissions based on race, contradicting California’s long-established prohibition against affirmative action.
This accusation is further complicated by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that allows campuses to consider race in admissions essays, ultimately leading to debates about what constitutes valid admissions practices.
The context for these grant suspensions can be traced back to a federal Department of Justice report released last month, which criticized UCLA for its handling of antisemitism, particularly following pro-Palestinian protests last year.
Immediately preceding the grant suspensions, UCLA reached a $6.45 million settlement with four Jewish plaintiffs. This agreement faced pushback from pro-Palestinian advocates, many of whom were Jewish themselves, revealing the complex nature of the discussions around antisemitism and free speech on campus.
A federal judge had previously sided with Jewish plaintiffs claiming that the anti-Israel protests infringed upon their religious liberties, emphasizing the need to balance free expression with the rights of students.
In the wake of the latest developments, on August 8, the Trump administration proposed a $1 billion settlement to UCLA in exchange for the restoration of suspended grants. This proposal sought to enforce stricter rules on campus demonstrations, which UCLA had already reaffirmed since last fall.
California’s political leadership responded sharply to the administration’s settlement demand. Governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump’s actions as extortion and vowed to take legal action against the administration.
He emphasized California’s commitment to fighting back against federal overreach, echoing a stance that has taken shape throughout the relationship between the state and the Trump administration.
In a counterstatement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded, inviting California’s officials to proceed with legal challenges.
UC President James B. Milliken expressed concern over the significant financial implications of the proposed settlement, stating, “A payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.”
UCLA continues to advocate for the beneficial impacts of its research and the vital funding that underpins its scientific endeavors, stressing the importance of continued support amid ongoing legal and political challenges.
image source from：calmatters
