WASHINGTON – On Thursday, the Supreme Court extended the Trump administration’s substantial reductions to the National Health Grants, part of the federal government’s initiative on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

However, in this intricate ruling, the court upheld another aspect of a lower court’s decision that discarded the administration’s guidance documents related to the policy, raising doubts about its viability going forward.

An emergency request by an administrator aiming to pause the Massachusetts federal judge’s ruling was partially granted, resulting in a 5-4 vote.

While the court did not extensively elaborate on its reasoning, the majority suggested that groups contesting the funding cuts would need to initiate a new lawsuit in a different federal court, specifically the Federal Court of Claims.

The decisive vote came from conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett. All four conservative justices supported the Trump administration’s application, indicating that the other four justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and three liberal justices, would have completely denied it.

Barrett stated in a concurring opinion, “As today’s order indicates, district courts likely lack jurisdiction to address the funding challenges that pertain to the federal claims court.” She added, “The government is not entitled to a stay of judgment as long as it possesses valid guidance documents.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a collection of agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, receiving billions of dollars from Congress for medical research funding at universities, hospitals, and various institutions.

When President Donald Trump assumed office in January, he asserted that what is termed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) constituted discrimination mainly against white individuals, rather than fostering equality as intended. He also championed policies recognizing transgender rights, including access to gender transition care.

Subsequently, the NIH conducted a review of grants and concluded that over 1,700 were inconsistent with Trump’s directives, resulting in their termination, which included programs related to teenage HIV prevention and gender identity studies.

Massachusetts, along with 16 states represented by the American Public Health Association, has contested this action.

After the trial, District Judge William Young of Massachusetts ruled that the government had not adhered to the proper legal protocols while enacting the policy, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

In haste to execute Trump’s agenda, the NIH “failed to comply with legal requirements,” Young noted.

He characterized DEI as an “undefined enemy,” stating that government attorneys could not adequately clarify its meaning.

Young found evidence of “prevailing racism” and “widespread discrimination” against gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals in how grants were awarded. Furthermore, he identified “a distinct pattern of discrimination against women’s health issues.”

He declined to stay his ruling, a decision mirrored by the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General John Sauer requested the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration, likening the situation to another incident in Massachusetts where the Trump administration obstructed plans to eliminate teacher training grants based on anti-DEI grounds.

The Supreme Court had blocked this earlier ruling in April with a 5-4 vote.

Sauer asserted, “This application presents a particularly clear case where this court must intervene to prevent the district court from disregarding this court’s previous decision.”

The state’s attorney countered Sauer’s assertion, stating it “bears little resemblance to reality.”

The judge deliberated Thursday on whether the April ruling impacted the latest case’s outcome.

In a brief opinion, Roberts, who had contested the previous case, asserted that Young’s findings fell within the permissible scope of district court jurisdiction.

However, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized Young in a separate opinion for failing to comply with the April ruling.

“While lower court judges may oppose this court’s ruling, they are never free to disregard it,” he wrote.

The Trump administration frequently relied on the Supreme Court when facing judicial challenges to its enforcement actions, generally securing favorable outcomes. Trump and his supporters have also aggressively criticized judges who opposed him.