9th Circuit Upholds Order Blocking Termination of University of California Research Grants
San Francisco, CA – August 21, 2025 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a district court’s preliminary injunction, preventing the Trump administration from terminating over $324 million in federal research grants to the University of California (UC) system. The ruling in Thakur v. Trump ensures continued funding for critical research projects while the government’s appeal proceeds, delivering a significant win for academic researchers and the UC system.
The dispute originated from executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in January and February 2025, directing federal agencies to cancel grants deemed misaligned with administration priorities, including those tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or other vaguely defined “prohibited” topics. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) abruptly terminated UC grants supporting research on issues like wildfire smoke health impacts, methane emissions, and racial equity in STEM education. The terminations, often justified with boilerplate language citing “agency priorities,” affected hundreds of researchers and threatened significant disruptions.
In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin issued a class-wide preliminary injunction, finding that the terminations likely violated the First Amendment by targeting protected speech and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by lacking reasoned explanations. The injunction reinstated the grants and prohibited further cancellations based on viewpoint-based or arbitrary criteria. The Trump administration appealed, arguing that the actions were permissible “suspensions” within executive authority, but the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument in its August 21 decision.
The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed that the plaintiffs, led by UC researcher Dr. Neeta Thakur, demonstrated a likelihood of success on claims of viewpoint discrimination and APA violations. The court emphasized the “substantial public harm” caused by the terminations, including halted research, layoffs, and disruptions to graduate programs. “This decision protects the integrity of scientific inquiry and ensures critical research continues,” said Linda Gilleran, a partner at Farella Braun + Martel, representing the plaintiffs.
The ruling also addressed specific actions against UCLA, where approximately $584 million in grants, including 300 NSF awards, were suspended in July 2025. The administration tied these suspensions to a $1 billion settlement demand over alleged campus antisemitism, a move Judge Lin ruled violated her injunction. On August 12, 2025, she ordered the restoration of UCLA’s NSF grants, a decision bolstered by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
Despite this victory, the UC system faces uncertainty. A concurrent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on August 21 allowed the termination of nearly $800 million in health research funding in a related case, signaling potential challenges ahead. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a critical step, but the Supreme Court’s stance suggests this fight may escalate,” said Claudia Polsky, director of UC Berkeley’s environmental law clinic and co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
The Trump administration has pledged to continue its appeal, asserting executive authority to redirect federal funding. UC advocates, including Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, argue that such actions threaten academic freedom and scientific progress. “Arbitrary funding cuts based on political priorities undermine the foundation of public research,” Chemerinsky stated.
With $4.069 billion in federal research awards in 2024, the UC system is a cornerstone of U.S. scientific innovation. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling ensures that vital projects addressing public health, environmental challenges, and educational equity can continue for now. As the case progresses, it remains a pivotal battleground in debates over executive power, academic freedom, and the role of federal funding in higher education.
Sources: Courthouse News Service, Farella Braun + Martel LLP, Daily Journal, POLITICO, Bloomberg Law, MSN, CalMatters, CBS News, Law&Crime, UPI, University of California