The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the administration can proceed with cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. 

In a 5-4 decision, the Court lifted a lower judge’s order that had blocked $783 million in cuts made by the National Institutes of Health. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. 

However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cast the deciding vote to keep the administration’s anti-DEI directive blocked for future grant allocations, limiting the ruling’s reach.

The decision permits the cancellation of hundreds of existing research grants while litigation continues. Plaintiffs in the case called the ruling a “significant setback for public health,” though they noted that preventing future cuts under the directive is at least a partial safeguard.

The Justice Department has argued that funding choices should not be open to judicial review, saying DEI-related policies can “conceal insidious racial discrimination.”

The move challenges a portion of the estimated $12 billion in NIH projects that have been eliminated. In its emergency appeal, the administration also questioned nearly two dozen other rulings that had blocked funding cuts. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said those cases belong in federal claims court, not before district judges.

A majority of the justices agreed. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, faulted lower courts for not following earlier Supreme Court guidance, writing: “All these interventions should have been unnecessary.”

The challengers, including 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public health groups, had argued that research grants differ from contracts like those in earlier DEI-related cases. They said midstream cancellations disrupt data collection, derail scientific careers, and harm the nation’s ability to achieve breakthroughs.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a strongly worded dissent, criticized both the outcome and the use of the Court’s emergency appeals process. “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” she wrote, referencing the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes.

In June, U.S. District Judge William Young of Massachusetts, a Reagan appointee, had called the cuts “arbitrary and discriminatory,” adding during a hearing: “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. Have we no shame.” His ruling had been upheld by an appeals court before being overturned.