A federal judge on Wednesday issued an order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from imposing a 15 percent cap on research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), finding that plaintiffs had a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their argument.
U.S. District Court Judge Angel Kelley granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on the Trump White House’s plans to set a 15 percent cap on payments for indirect costs for NIH grant recipients. These funds go towards administrative costs, facility fees and paying support staff.
Last month, Kelley granted a request for a restraining order on the funding rate change, barring NIH from enforcing its plans. The plaintiffs include 22 attorneys generals representing their respective states, who argue that slashing funding for indirect costs would be devastating to grant recipients.
NIH-funded researchers who spoke with The Hill said that if the 15 percent cap on indirect funds were allowed to stand, it would make crucial research “nonviable.”
In his ruling on Wednesday, Kelley found that the crux of the plaintiffs’ argument hinges on “federal statute and regulations put in place by Congress and NIH.”
“Plaintiffs argue that the Rate Change Notice failed to follow administrative procedure, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, including that the action was arbitrary and capricious, that it failed to abide by notice-and-comment requirements, and that it is impermissibly retroactive,” wrote Kelley.
The judge determined that the Trump administration had failed to follow proper administrative procedures, such as submitting the rate change to notice-and-comment rulemaking. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently released a policy stating his department would no longer allow public comments in its rulemaking process.
But Kelley cited previous cases that found federal agencies cannot “simply disregard rules that are still on the books” and ruled that “the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in claiming the Rate Change Notice conflicts with existing regulation.”
“Considering the irreparable harm likely to befall similarly situated nonparties, the chaos that would result both for institutions and NIH from a patchwork of injunctions, the diffuse nature of the Plaintiffs, and the nature of the suit, a nationwide preliminary injunction is the appropriate and reasonable remedy,” wrote Kelley.
