NIH Agrees to Evaluate and Complete Review on Stalled Scientific Grant Applications

BOSTON - Grant applications that were arbitrarily frozen, denied, or withdrawn by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will now receive individual evaluations under an agreement announced today in a lawsuit brought on behalf of scientists whose careers were upended by unlawful NIH policy directives. Under a stipulated dismissal, the NIH has agreed to use its standard process to render decisions on the plaintiffs' stalled applications, which address urgent public health issues, including HIV prevention, Alzheimer's disease, LGBTQ+ health, and sexual violence.

"This agreement allows my grant application, and many others, to move forward for review after an arbitrary and destructive freeze. I'm building a career around studying the aging brain, with a particular focus on Alzheimer's disease and alcohol use, said plaintiff Nikki Maphis, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of New Mexico. "I look forward to having my funding proposal evaluated fairly so that I can continue contributing to urgent and unmet public health needs."

"Researchers deserve to have their work evaluated on its merits, not sidelined by political interference," said Olga Akselrod, senior counsel, ACLU Racial Justice Program. "NIH has now agreed to review the stalled applications individually and in good faith, without applying the unlawful policy directives."

The agreement also sets clear deadlines for the applications to be reviewed and decided on, based on when each application was originally submitted. Importantly, the agreement confirms that the close of the Federal Fiscal Year 2025 will not prevent the NIH from reviewing or awarding any applications.

"This agreement marks another important step toward restoring trust in our public institutions," said Kenneth Parreno, counsel at Protect Democracy. "By committing to evaluate these NIH grant applications on their scientific merit, not on political ideology, the federal government is taking a necessary step to ensure that facts, evidence, and the rule of law guide the decisions that shape our nation's health and innovation."

"NIH's unprecedented actions to implement unlawful directives earlier this year put many scientists' careers in limbo, including hundreds of members of the American Public Health Association and the UAW union. This agreement allows them to move forward after months of uncertainty and ensures that each grant application from the plaintiffs and their members receives a good-faith, scientifically rigorous review without reference to the unlawful directives," said Jessie Rossman, legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, Protect Democracy, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP filed a lawsuit challenging the abrupt cancellations and stalled application of grants on behalf of individual researchers, along with the American Public Health Association (APHA); the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW); and Ibis Reproductive Health.

This agreement does not impact the first phase of the case, in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found NIH's directives to be unlawful and vacated grant terminations. In August, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to review the termination of research grants by the NIH. However, the Supreme Court declined to stay the district court's conclusion that the directives violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The District Court's decision is on appeal and oral argument will be heard in the First Circuit Court of Appeals on January 6, 2026.

The agreement can be found online here.

Topics

• Litigation

Contact Info: , 202-777-8370