A federal judge in California on Monday ordered the Trump administration to immediately restore hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants to scientists and staff at the University of California, finding the government’s actions violated constitutional protections and administrative law.
U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin, appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a 62-page ruling granting a preliminary injunction and certifying two classes of plaintiffs whose research funding had been abruptly terminated.
The judge criticized the administration’s use of generic form letters to cancel awarded grants and rejected the stated rationale that the projects no longer aligned with “agency priorities.”
“The law requires agencies to provide reasoned explanations for their decisions, especially when reversing long-standing practices that disrupt years of planning and work,” Judge Lin wrote. “The form termination letters here appear to be in blatant violation of that requirement.”
The court found that defunding the projects would result in severe and immediate harm, including job losses, disrupted education, damaged reputations, and the silencing of constitutionally protected speech.
What Triggered the Lawsuit
Earlier this year, President Trump signed a series of executive orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from federally funded programs. Following that, several agencies began terminating existing grants — not just those tied to DEI — but many others deemed politically or ideologically objectionable. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created under Trump, played a major role in executing the purge.
According to the plaintiffs, more than $324 million in UC grants were terminated, some based on nothing more than keyword searches of terms like “diversity” or “equity.” These terminations were carried out with form letters offering no individualized explanation.
One lead plaintiff, UCSF researcher Dr. Neeta Thakur, had her three-year wildfire smoke study — aimed at protecting low-income and minority communities — canceled without notice or explanation.
Judge: Cancellations Violated the First Amendment and APA
In her ruling, Judge Lin found that the grant terminations likely violated both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to provide a rational basis for their decisions.
“Although a new administration may set different priorities, it cannot suppress disfavored viewpoints by yanking funding for research explicitly supported by Congress,” the judge wrote.
She ruled the government’s actions constituted viewpoint discrimination and undermined Congress’s intent to fund research that promotes broader participation in the sciences.
The court identified two distinct groups of affected plaintiffs:
- The “Equity Class” — those whose grants were cut due to DEI-related topics.
- The “Form Termination Class” — those who received generic cancellation letters.
Judge Lin ordered the federal government to halt further cancellations and restore previously terminated grants for both groups.
Government’s Defense Falls Flat
In response, federal lawyers argued the plaintiffs were merely bringing contract disputes and lacked standing to challenge the cuts. But Judge Lin found these arguments “difficult to reconcile” and ultimately meritless.
“Plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief because they suffered direct harm from illegal terminations that disrupted their research and pay,” she wrote.
What Happens Next?
The injunction forces the government to reinstate funding immediately and prevents future grant cancellations without due process.
The Trump administration has not yet responded publicly to the ruling, but an appeal is expected.
This case marks one of the most significant legal setbacks for Trump’s post-presidency initiatives targeting academic and scientific institutions seen as opposing his political agenda.
