Thakur v. Trump

Summary

In June 2025, Dr. Neeta Thakur, an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of UC researchers whose federal grants had been suspended or terminated by the Trump administration. The complaint argued that the cancellations were politically motivated, targeted research associated with diversity, equity and inclusion, and violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. On June 22, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin issued a preliminary injunction requiring the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Endowment for the Humanities to reinstate grants that had been terminated without individualized justification. Judge Lin held that the cancellations likely violated federal law and were arbitrary and capricious.

In early August, the NSF suspended about 300 additional grants at UCLA, prompting further litigation. Judge Lin concluded that these new suspensions violated her earlier injunction because they amounted to unlawful terminations, and she ordered the NSF to restore the grants and provide a status report by August 19. By mid-August, UCLA researchers had begun to receive reinstated funding following these rulings.

On August 21, the legal battle reached two appellate courts. That morning, a Ninth Circuit panel refused to stay Judge Lin’s injunction, finding that the administration’s actions likely amounted to viewpoint discrimination by singling out DEI-related research and that the government had failed to show either a likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable harm. Later that day, the Supreme Court issued a stay in a related challenge that allowed the administration to proceed with cuts to NIH and other research programs, estimated at $783 million, while litigation continued.