Neil Gorsuch sharply criticized lower courts after the Supreme Court of the United States issued a narrow ruling allowing the Trump administration to cut certain National Institutes of Health grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The 5–4 decision permits the administration to halt millions of dollars in funding connected to DEI programs, gender identity research, and some COVID-19 related projects. Writing separately and joined by Brett Kavanaugh, Gorsuch warned that several lower courts have recently failed to follow the Supreme Court’s directives. He noted that the justices had already addressed similar issues in earlier rulings. According to Gorsuch, lower court judges may disagree with the Court’s conclusions, but they must still follow them under the federal judiciary’s hierarchy.
The dispute began when attorneys general from 16 Democratic-led states, along with public health organizations, challenged the administration’s decision to end DEI-linked grants at the NIH. They argued the cuts would harm research addressing health disparities and discrimination. A federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the NIH to continue funding the grants despite a previous Supreme Court decision that limited such orders. The Supreme Court intervened and allowed the administration’s funding cuts to proceed while the broader legal fight continues. Amy Coney Barrett provided the decisive vote on the funding issue, siding with conservative justices including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. However, Barrett joined John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices in allowing a lower-court order to stand that removed certain NIH guidance documents promoting DEI priorities.
In his opinion, Gorsuch pointed to recent cases in which the Supreme Court reversed lower courts that had issued rulings conflicting with its earlier decisions. He described the pattern as troubling and emphasized that lower courts cannot disregard binding precedent. The ruling marks another legal development in the Trump administration’s effort to roll back federal DEI programs. Supporters say the changes prevent race-based preferences in federal funding, while critics argue the cuts could weaken research aimed at addressing inequality in public health.
