Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to review ruling on UC grant termination

The Trump administration filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 23, 2026, seeking review of a ruling involving the termination of University of California research grants. According to reports, the petition challenges a lower-court decision that blocked the government from canceling grants based on diversity, equity, and inclusion language and allegations of viewpoint discrimination.

The petition was submitted by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, according to reporting published Aug. 23, 2026. It challenges a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling from May 2026 that blocked the Trump administration from terminating research grants awarded to University of California (UC) faculty members on the basis of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) language and alleged viewpoint discrimination. The Supreme Court has until Sept. 18, 2026, to decide whether to take up the case.

The district court in the Northern District of California, presided over by U.S. District Judge Rita Lin, issued a preliminary injunction in 2025 ordering the government to reinstate more than $500 million in federal research funding to individual UC researchers.

The underlying litigation began in July 2025, when UC researchers filed suit against the Trump administration after federal agencies canceled their research grants following executive directives targeting DEI-related projects. The litigation has involved multiple layers of federal court review since then. According to a JURIST summary of the ruling, the court found that the terminations were issued by form letters with little or no explanation, and that the suspensions were likely arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Ninth Circuit panel’s May 26, 2026, opinion in *Thakur v. Trump* affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s injunction, ordering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to reinstate certain UC research grants. The appellate court ruled in favor of eight UC researchers, holding that the administration could not terminate grants based on recipients’ assumed beliefs about DEI. The opinion emphasized that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and prohibits federal agencies from terminating grants based on perceived viewpoints.

According to reporting, the Ninth Circuit ruling involved approximately $324 million in research grants awarded to UC faculty members. Other reports have placed the broader figure of canceled research grants to UC professors during the Trump administration at about $2 billion, though that number encompasses a wider set of funding disputes beyond the specific appellate case. Additional reports noted separate UC funding actions affecting more than $500 million and around 800 UCLA science grants, illustrating the broader context of federal funding disputes involving the university system.

The district court’s relief expanded on a June 2025 injunction that blocked three agencies from terminating research grants en masse through form letters. In September 2025, Judge Lin ordered the government to restore 500 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants at UCLA, part of the broader UC litigation. The court’s findings cited likely violations of the APA and raised First Amendment concerns related to viewpoint discrimination, according to court records and legal analyses.

The plaintiffs argued that the grant terminations violated the APA by being arbitrary, capricious, and lacking proper explanation. The courts also examined whether federal agencies could impose new conditions retroactively or cancel awards based on changed policy priorities, particularly regarding DEI initiatives. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion underscored that agencies cannot rely on vague or viewpoint-based reasoning to justify terminating grants.

As of the Aug. 23, 2026, report, the Trump administration’s petition to the Supreme Court was pending, with the government seeking to overturn or narrow the Ninth Circuit ruling that favored UC researchers. The case is part of a broader pattern of federal disputes over UC research funding, including separate rulings involving UCLA and other campuses. The appellate record shows a procedural history involving injunctions, partial reversals, and remands, without a final merits judgment.

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case will test the extent to which federal agencies can terminate research grants based on policy-related or viewpoint-related considerations. The outcome could have significant implications for future federal research funding and the legal protections afforded to grant recipients.