Universities and States Sue NIH Over Funding Cuts, Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Policy

In a separate case against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), also filed Monday February 10, 2025, 12 universities and 3 higher education groups (Plaintiffs) submitted a claim against the NIH and HSS (Defendants) to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, requesting injunctive relief from the new NIH policy that placed a 15% cap on facilities and administration (F & A) costs for NIH research grants. These entities include,

The Association of American Universities, American Council on Education Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Brandeis University, Brown University, The Regents of the University of California, The California Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon University, The University of Chicago, Cornell University, The George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Rochester, and Trustees of Tufts College.

In their claim, the plaintiffs argue that the NIH has completely ignored existing statutes (laws made by legislative bodies) that “prohibit[s] HHS or NIH from spending appropriated funds “to develop or implement a modified approach to” the reimbursement of “indirect costs” and “deviations from negotiated rates (page 4).” The plaintiffs state that the administration had previously attempted to reduce indirect cost rates in 2017, which Congress blocked with provisions made to maintain the existing regulatory framework for indirect costs.

The recent policy change would directly violate those provisions made by Congress in 2017. The claim further explains that a continuance of this policy change from NIH would lead to devastating effects, crippling institutions across the nation from being able to continue essential medical and scientific research, potentially leading smaller institutions to close entirely.

In a Tuesday, February 11, 2025, morning email to the Johns Hopkins community, President Ronald J. Daniels, CM; and the dean of the medical faculty and Johns Hopkins University University School of Medicine and CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Theodore L. DeWeese, broke the news of the lawsuit, and the importance of fighting a policy change that would be detrimental to the life-saving research conducted by the institution. It was discussed how imposing this funding cap on indirect research costs would decimate research at universities across the nation.

“We could point to any number of examples of how these dramatic cuts will impact our research and patient care mission, but let us offer just one: NIH funding supports approximately 600 current and ongoing clinical trials at Johns Hopkins,” the email said. “This includes open clinical trials in cancer, pediatrics and children’s health, heart and vascular studies, and the aging brain, among many others. The NIH funding cut endangers these trials and many more like them into the future. And these trial participants are our patients. The care, treatments, and medical breakthroughs provided to them and their families are not ‘overhead’ – they offer meaningful hope and scientific expertise, often when it’s needed most.”

US District Judge Angel Kelley temporarily restrained the NIH 15% funding cap on Monday, February 10, 2025, in her response to the claim filed by 22 states against the NIH, with a hearing set for February 21, 2025. A third lawsuit, also filed on Monday, February 10, 2025, requested that the injunction be applied to the 22 states suing and to all states across the nation. The pause was extended by Kelley late Monday, February 10, 2025. night to be applied as nationwide injunctive relief. These lawsuits may eventually be consolidated if the case continues to move forward, as all 3 cases are relatively similar.

A complicated legal process will ensue as plaintiffs await their case's hearing during the February 21, 2025, preliminary hearing. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield applauded the swift action taken by federal judge Angel Kelley to restrain the NIH’s new funding policy in a media release from the Oregon Department of Justice on Monday, February 10, 2025. “This legal victory underscores the importance of holding federal agencies accountable when their actions threaten the well-being of our communities,” said Rayfield.

So now we sit and wait, hoping beyond all hope that this nation continues to be a leader in medical and scientific research, that the thousands of dedicated researchers in this country can continue to provide innovative solutions to health conditions, and that our universities continue to have the opportunity to offer higher education for the thousands of brilliant students seeking to contribute their ideas.

I am grateful to Judge Angel Kelley for quickly imposing this temporary restraining order on the NIH funding policy changes. I am grateful for the states, universities, and organizations that have opposed these devastating cost reductions. However, regardless of our gratitude as a research community for enacting these checks and balances, we remain on edge while the judicial system fights against a policy that would have a devastating impact on medical and scientific research.