>The Trump administration has repeatedly [interfered](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/08/nih-funding-whiplash/683773/) inside NIH, including by **terminating funding for thousands of projects**. A Reagan-appointed trial court judge found that hundreds of these grant terminations were **‘breathtakingly’ illegal and ordered NIH to immediately reinstate them**. Now, the Trump administration has **appealed this reinstatement order to the Supreme Court**. The Supreme Court will make a decision on the stay request soon on the **shadow docket**, where the Court issues often unsigned decisions, at unpredictable times, providing little or no reasoning. The Supreme Court has been behaving in a ‘lawless’ and political fashion, according to many legal experts (see [FAQs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16QmNqUUYvjPN_AH_LFfeABrF7gOQQsGybgKhT7xn8qQ/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.evt11tv3ns4d) below), and the Court seems likely to stay the trial court’s order, allowing the Trump administration to re-terminate the grants. A Supreme Court stay would throw NIH into further chaos, harming efforts to award many other grants.

>***What can we do now?*** The [Supreme Court responds to public pressure](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/31/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-00487536). We can speak out in every venue available. Tell the Supreme Court the public is watching. Let’s demand: **No Stay**. And demand the Court and Trump administration keep their **Hands Off NIH**.

Also

>**How might the Supreme Court justify a stay**? When shadow docket orders are issued, no justification is required, so there may be no reasoning at all. But we may get some explanation, as we have seen in prior shadow docket rulings this year. While it is impossible to predict what the Supreme Court will use as its legal arguments, there are two pieces of information that suggest the Court will wave its hands, cite a technicality, and say Judge Young did not have the right to rule on this case.

and

>**But if the Supreme Court says what Trump is doing is legal, how can we argue with them?** The Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have effectively rewritten many American laws over the past 15 years, from the Voting Rights Act, to laws affecting bribery, fraud, guns, discrimination, public health, unionization, agency function, regulatory power, dark money donor disclosure, abortion rights, and money in politics. Part of the reason they have been able to change the law and Constitutional interpretation so effectively is their actions hide behind often-complex legal theories. The Court has been able to legislate in this way in part because they have cultivated a situation where only a small set of highly experienced lawyers gets to weigh in on what the law says. To stop the Court from imposing the Trump political agenda on us, we can and should stand up for broad legal and Constitutional principles.

  
and

>**My grant wasn’t affected in this case. Why will this SCOTUS case affect me?**

>It would increase burden on already overwhelmed NIH staff. Any further interference at NIH, any re-termination by SCOTUS, will gum up the works at NIH. NIH staff are near the breaking point. This will increase their workload even further, and that will put all award actions at risk. If you are waiting on an NIH award, this affects you! Trump's frequent policy changes have already created substantial delays in NIH funding, and NIH staff are scrambling, racing against the clock to get out awards before funds expire at the end of the fiscal year. Every delay matters.

The SCOTUS could issue a decision at any point. 

\---- 

  
ugh. Shadow Docket

The Supreme Court is reviewing NIH grant terminations on its shadow docket -- and it's looking grim. Speak out everywhere you can: No Stay. Hands Off NIH, SCOTUS