UCLA’s Health Science Grants Restored: Federal Judge Rejects Trump’s Suspensions, Impacting 500 Vital Projects

A federal judge in California has made a significant ruling impacting UCLA. Judge Rita Lin ordered the Trump administration to restore 500 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants that were suspended in July. The administration had accused the university of allowing antisemitism on its campus.

This decision is a relief for researchers at UCLA while the university grapples with Trump’s demand for a $1.2 billion settlement. More than 600 Jewish members of the University of California community have publicly criticized these accusations, calling them misguided. UCLA administrators have emphasized their ongoing efforts to combat antisemitism, highlighting their commitment days before Trump’s demands surfaced.

In a public letter. UC Jewish professors, students, and alumni asserted that cutting funding wouldn’t improve campus safety or reduce antisemitism. Last week, multiple UC faculty groups and unions filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the funding cuts aimed to suppress free speech and academic freedom.

Since June, Judge Lin has issued multiple orders to restore grants from various federal agencies. Her recent ruling reinstates almost all of the 800 science grants that were halted in July, valued at over $500 million. The restored grants fund vital research in areas like life-saving drugs and education. This funding is crucial not only for current projects but also for training the next generation of researchers.

Lin also restored several Department of Transportation and Department of Defense grants that had been cut. She required federal lawyers to confirm compliance by the end of September.

Looking back, Lin’s previous orders have consistently favored UC researchers, emphasizing that the federal government’s actions violated legal procedures. This includes a requirement for transparency when terminating grants under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Interestingly, Lin’s latest ruling may offer a new path for other researchers challenging grant terminations, especially following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that complicated the appeal process. The Supreme Court ruled that claims for defunded grants must be brought in the little-known Court of Federal Claims, but Lin clarified that her ruling applies to individual researchers, allowing them to defend their rights in district court.

The Trump administration justified the funding suspensions by alleging UCLA’s admissions practices are race-based and that it has failed to address campus antisemitism. However, California banned race-based admissions in 1996. The agencies argued that UCLA’s holistic admissions process still effectively considers race, a claim contested by the university.

While the Supreme Court upheld the prohibition on race in admissions in 2023, it made clear that students can discuss race-related experiences in their applications.

UCLA has also faced criticism over its handling of antisemitism allegations, especially during pro-Palestine protests. Advocacy groups emphasize that Trump’s settlement demands do not genuinely improve safety for Jewish students, even as they recognize UCLA’s efforts to address these critical issues.

This ongoing saga highlights not just legal battles, but broader discussions around free speech, academic freedom, and the intersection of politics and education. As these events unfold, it’s clear that the implications for UCLA and similar institutions are far-reaching, affecting not only current research but also the future landscape of higher education.

For more insights into federal funding and academic freedom, visit CalMatters.

Source link

UCLA, research funding, federal judge, Trump