INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Casa blocked the use of a national injunction against illegal activity
So, while the government's actions have been determined to be illegal, Young can only protect the people who were parties to this suit
Anyone who lost a grant but wasn't a member of any of the parties involved, or based in any of the states that sued, remains on their
own.Those issues aside, the ruling largely focuses on whether the termination of grants violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which
governs how the executive branch handles decision- and rule-making
Specifically, it requires that any decisions of this sort cannot be "arbitrary and capricious." And, Young concludes that the government
diversity, equity, and inclusion and gender identity, that has expanded to include vaccine hesitancy, COVID, influencing public opinion and
climate change." The "undefined" aspect plays a key part in his reasoning
executive order that launched the "newly minted war," and Young found that administrators within the NIH issued multiple documents that
attempted to define it, not all of which were consistent with each other, and in some cases seemed to use circular reasoning.He also noted
that the officials who sent these memos had a tendency to resign shortly afterward, writing, "it is not lost on the Court that oftentimes
people vote with their feet."As a result, the NIH staff had no solid guidance for determining whether a given grant violated the new
anti-DEI policy, or how that might be weighed against the scientific merit of the grant
So, how were they to identify which grants needed to be terminated? The evidence revealed at trial indicates that they didn't need to make
those decisions; DOGE made them for the NIH
In one case, an NIH official approved a list of grants to terminate received from DOGE only two minutes after it showed up in his inbox.
