ASCB and three other major life science organizations have submitted a friend of the court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), opposing a White House request that SCOTUS pause a recent federal court ruling in Boston. The four groups are the ASCB, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), and the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology (FASEB).
That federal court ruling struck down the administration’s decision to cancel NIH grants designed to support diversity in the scientific workforce. In striking down the White House action, the federal judge in Boston called the grant cancellations “void and illegal,” saying that he had “never seen government racial discrimination like this.”
Now, the administration is asking SCOTUS to block that decision. In arguing against the stay asked for by the Administration, the groups’ amicus brief rebukes the administration for not acknowledging the impact their cuts will have on American science, making the point that, “The government largely avoids discussing these harms because it has no answer for them. And its vague assurance that ‘a stay would not end scientific research,’ rings hollow. The mass termination of NIH grants has ground research to a halt.”
“We are encouraged by the district court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs,” said Rebecca Alvania, CEO of the American Society for Cell Biology. “However, the administration’s request for a stay pending appeal would allow these terminations to continue throughout what could be a lengthy appeal process. This is not only profoundly unfair to the individual scientists who have already lost their funding and would remain without support, but it also inflicts ongoing harm on the research ecosystem.”
The four groups had filed amicus briefs at earlier stages in the judicial process, including the original case and in opposition to a request by the Administration to pause the lower court’s ruling.
The request by the Trump Administration for a stay of the lower court ruling was submitted to the Supreme Court on its Emergency Docket, seeking urgent action by the court. Unlike normal court cases, cases on the Emergency Docket do not include oral arguments and are decided quickly without the usual opinions for and against the decision of the majority.
About the Author:
Kevin M. Wilson serves as Vice President, Policy, Governance and Partnerships for The American Society for Cell Biology. He's worked as the Legislative Director for U.S. Congressman Robert Weygand (D-RI) and as a Legislative Assistant for U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI). He has a BA in Politics and American Government from the Catholic University of America. Email: kwilson@ascb.org
