Washington – the Trump administration may reduce hundreds of millions of dollars of research financing for the pursuit of limiting federal diversity, justice and inclusion, inclusion, Supreme Court It was decided on Thursday.
The divided court raised a judge’s decision blocking a cut of $ 783 million made by the National Institutes of Health in order to adapt to the priorities of the Republican President Donald Trump.
The Tribunal parted 5-4 to a decision. The main judge John Roberts was one of those who would not allow you to cuts with the three liberals of the Tribunal. However, the Supreme Court retained the Trump administration guidelines regarding future financing blocked with a key vote from judge Amy Coney Barrett.
The decision is won by Trump of the latest Supreme Court and allows administration to overtake hundreds of subsidies, while the process is still developing. The plaintiffs, including the state and the group of public health sparves, argued that cuts would cause “unpredictable losses in public health and human life.”
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice stated that financing decisions should not “be subject to a second Gcele court” and efforts to promote policies referred to as Dei may “hide insidious racial discrimination.”
The claim applies only to the estimated part of $ 12 billion NIH research projects This was cut off, but in its emergency appeal Trump’s administration also sought almost two dozen judges of judges who stood in the way to financing cuts.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that judges should not consider these matters based on the previous decision of the Supreme Court, which explained that the program of the teacher training program also linked with Dei. He says that instead they should go to the Federal Court of claims.
Five conservative judges agreed, and judge Neil Gorsuch wrote a miniature opinion in which he criticized judges with a lower field for not compliance with previous orders of the Supreme Court. “All these interventions should be unnecessary,” wrote Gorsuch.
The plaintiffs, 16 democratic general lawyers of the general and public health of public health, unsuccessfully argued that Research subsidies They are fundamentally different from teacher training contracts and they cannot be sent to the court.
They said that the Developing of research in half suspends the research, ruins the data already collected and ultimately harm the country’s potential in scientific breakthroughs, disturbing the work of scientists during their career.
The justice of Ketanja Brown Jackson wrote a long objection in which she criticized both the result and the readiness of her colleagues to further permission of administration to take advantage of the court’s appeal process.
“This is Calvinball’s jurisprudence with a return.
In June, American district judge William Young in Massachusetts said that there were appeals arbitrary and discrimination. “I’ve never seen such a racial government discrimination,” said the denominator of the Republican President Ronald Reagan at the trial. He later added: “Are we not ashamed.”
The Court of Appeal left the Young decision.
