by This week, a federal judge ordered attorneys for the Trump administration to provide an explanation for why the National Science Foundation’s decision to suspend around 300 grants from UCLA last week did not conflict with the judge’s June order prohibiting the agency from canceling any funds.
Rita F. Lin, the judge of the California district court, scheduled a hearing for August 12. Lin’s order responds to a filing made by attorneys for researchers from the University of California on Monday. In their letter to Lin, they demanded that the suspensions from last week be lifted by the Science Foundation.
Their submission is a component of a pending lawsuit that contested the legitimacy of the National Science Foundation’s decision to terminate 114 UC awards this spring due to purported violations of diversity, equity, and inclusion. In June, Lin issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Science Foundation from terminating any more funds and directing them to restore the grants.
The National Science Foundation’s decision to suspend UCLA’s awards last week is being challenged in court for the first time, according to the UC academics’ attorneys. The suspensions, according to the science agency’s attorneys at the Federal Department of Justice, do not contravene Lin’s June preliminary order.
The most recent debate demonstrates how new and ongoing legal issues reinforce one another. Additionally, it is the most recent phase of the Trump administration’s multifaceted strategy to punish colleges for alleged DEI infractions and revoke funding for academic research.The Trump administration has come under fire from several federal judges for failing to define DEI and yet denying schools funds because of those violations.
About $170 million in grant funding is on hold as a result of last week’s bans, and UCLA researchers are unable to use any remaining funds to carry out their investigations. One of the biggest providers of university grants for scientific research is the National Science Foundation. To make scientific discoveries, train graduate students, and maintain the research infrastructure that has made the United States perhaps the world’s leader in scientific discovery, campuses depend on the funding.
The UCLA sanctions came after a federal Department of Justice report released last week that charged the university with failing to adequately combat antisemitism, especially in relation to incidents that occurred during the pro-Palestine demonstrations last year. The report was released months after UCLA appointed a task committee to look into campus antisemitism and provide recommendations that the university’s administrators promised to follow.According to the Department of Justice, UCLA has until today to indicate that it is open to reaching a consensus on antisemitism. If not, the agency stated that by September 2, it will lodge a complaint in a federal court.
How a June court case is related to UCLA suspensions
The National Science Foundation withdrew 114 awards to UCLA in the spring, but Lin ordered the agency to reinstate them in June. Additionally, she prohibited the government from freezing the majority of other grants. Two other agencies that terminated UC grants were instructed by Lin to follow suit. The National Endowment for the Humanities and the Environmental Protection Agency. While all three agencies returned the funding to UC researchers by mid-July, the later two agencies appealed that judgment.Two categories of awards were impacted by Lin’s order: those that the federal agencies said violated President Donald Trump’s DEI funding bans, or those that they canceled using a termination form that contained general or ambiguous wording about the project not matching agency priorities.
Following the Science Foundation’s Wednesday suspension of UCLA’s funds, attorneys for the UC researchers wrote to the district court judge on Monday, claiming the organization was in violation of her order because the suspensions effectively stopped the grant financing.Federal Department of Justice attorneys responded to Lin’s letter on Monday by stating that a suspension is not the same as a termination, which is what Lin prohibited in her preliminary order from June. Additionally, they claim that the suspensions were not based on Trump’s executive orders but rather on the Science Foundation’s allegations that UCLA has not done enough to combat antisemitism on campus, uses race-based admissions, and permits transgender women to participate in women’s sports. On August 1, Lisa Scott-Morring, an administrator with the National Science Foundation, wrote to UCLA outlining all three arguments.Since voters outlawed racial discrimination in 1996, California has prohibited public universities from accepting students on the basis of race. Although the school insists it does not practice affirmative action, Scott-Morring stated in her letter to UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk that its holistic review admissions method is de facto race-based admissions.According to Scott-Morring, the National Science Foundation thinks that UCLA’s holistic review admissions process, which takes into account an applicant’s family income, school profile, and neighborhood/zip code in addition to asking applicants to disclose their race through personal statements, is an open attempt to practice race-based admissions.
Get neighborhood news in your inbox. It’s free and enlightening.
Become one of the 20,000+ individuals who receive breaking news alerts and the Times of San Diego in their inbox every day at 8 a.m.
Weekly updates from San Diego communities have also been provided! You acknowledge and agree to the terms by clicking “Sign Up.” Choose from the options below.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the majority that students are free to talk about their identities and overcoming obstacles in admissions essays, even if the Supreme Court in 2023 overturned the use of race in college admissions in a 6-3 ruling.According to Roberts, nothing in this judgment could be interpreted as preventing colleges from taking into account an applicant’s explanation of how race impacted their life, whether through inspiration, discrimination, or other means.Scott-Morring’s letter has three criticisms that align with the policies.Trump is working to change the federal government and higher education through executive measures. Additionally, they are similar to the policy blueprint developed in Project 2025, a conservative journal that has influenced Trump’s present administration.
In order to bring UCLA into conformity, NSF is prepared to collaborate with UCLA to determine remedial measures. By August 15, UCLA must formally state that it is open to discussing these remedial measures, according to Scott-Morring.The UC academics’ attorneys contended that the Scott-Morring letters lacked sufficient grounds to halt the grants. The lawyers wrote to Lin on Monday, but neither letter provides a clear explanation of why the particular initiative was determined to be incompatible with the Agency’s aims. Since one of their persuasive arguments persuaded Lin to get the funds reinstated in June, they emphasize the absence of justification for the termination of individual awards.Additionally, they contend that since researchers are unable to access their funding in either case, the distinction between a suspension and a termination is entirely conceptual.
The attorneys representing the UC researchers wrote on Monday that NSF has breached the Preliminary Injunction and that the suspension of funding linked to the July 30 and August 1 Letters must be promptly lifted.
