Litigation Update
August 21, 2026
This week’s newsletter discusses lawsuits related to federal grant terminations and research funding cuts impacting public health, as well as an update on physicians' free speech. You can find our archive of newsletters here.
Grant Terminations for DEI-related Research
Perera et al. v. National Institutes of Health et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Docket No. 8:26-cv-02389) involves two researchers whose National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding was terminated as a result of the Trump administration’s efforts to revoke DEI-related grants. In January 2025, Executive Order 14173 required the Office of Management and Budget to “excise references to DEI and DEIA principles” from federal contracting, grants, or federal assistance procedures, and terminate all programs or activities as appropriate. In February 2025, the NIH Director stated the agency would “no longer prioritize research and research training programs that focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” and in March 2025, the NIH directed institute officials to tell grantees whose awards were being terminated that they were no longer prioritizing research programs related to DEI, gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, climate change or countries of concern.
Plaintiff Dr. Perera’s expertise is in pharmacokinetics, clinical pharmacology, and human genetics, and her laboratory at Northwestern University focuses on pharmacogenomics, or using a patient’s genome to predict drug response. She sought federal funding in 2022 to study Clopidogrel, an anti-platelet drug used to treat coronary heart disease with known genetic variants, as no previous study had comprehensively evaluated the drug’s response in non-European populations. The research would study the drug’s response in individuals of Puerto Rican descent, as such individuals’ genetic profiles help assess the drug’s risk for populations with mixed ancestry, and the NIH approved a multi-year, multi-million dollar research grant in September 2024. In April 2025, the NIH terminated the award, asserting that “research programs that are antithetical to the scientific inquiry do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”
Plaintiff Dr. Simon is a professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Preventive Medicine, and Medical Social Sciences at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, whose research is aimed at promoting health equity and care for medically underserved populations. In 2021, Dr. Simon sought NIH funding for a project aimed to correct imbalances with under-represented groups that comprised only ten percent of tenured track faculty at Northwestern University, with a goal of hiring individuals with disabilities, individuals from rural areas, Black, Indigenous, and Latinx individuals, women in under-represented fields, and individuals from a sexual or gender minority. She was awarded a $16 million grant that would fund the project over a five-year period. In April 2025, the NIH terminated the award on DEI grounds without providing any opportunity to take corrective action.
Termination of these grants – simply because their primary purpose was to serve underrepresented populations – threatens scientific advancement and can exacerbate health disparities. Plaintiffs are seeking a judgment declaring the agency’s directives and actions prohibiting federal research funding as unlawful or unconstitutional, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining defendants from enforcing the agency directives, and an order reinstating the plaintiffs’ NIH-funded grants. The complaint was filed on June 15, 2026, and the case is ongoing.
Federal Funding Cuts for HIV Treatment
In American Academy of HIV Medicine et al. v. Health Resources and Services Administration et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Docket No. 1:26-cv-12638), plaintiffs are organizations and HIV care providers who are challenging defendants’ directives that would require HIV care providers to “refuse to acknowledge, affirm, or respect the identities of their transgender patients,” or risk losing federal funding. In 1990, Congress responded to the HIV/AIDS epidemic by creating the Ryan White Program, which supports systems of care for people living with HIV and facilitates access to outpatient, primary care to improve health outcomes and minimize emergency room visits. Thousands of transgender people living with HIV have relied on Ryan White-funded clinics for decades.
On March 11, 2026, defendant Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which oversees the Ryan White Program, adopted a policy that HRSA funding recipients may not use federal funding to provide gender-affirming care. This directive threatens funding for HIV care providers who rely on Ryan White funding, and risks exacerbating the HIV epidemic by making it less likely that transgender patients will engage with HIV care. One recent study showed transgender people receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy have a 37 percent lower chance of acquiring HIV and that gender-affirming hormone therapy improved all HIV-related health outcomes for transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse people.
Plaintiffs claim that the HRSA is violating the Administrative Procedure Act by not acting rationally or transparently, and that their actions run afoul of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded health programs, including in HIV care programs funded by HHS and HRSA. Additionally, they allege defendants violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection by targeting a group for disfavored treatment, and the First Amendment by unlawfully attempting to regulate speech outside the contours of the program itself. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop the HRSA from enforcing these policies, as well as a declaration that the conditions are unlawful and unconstitutional. Defendants must file an answer to the complaint by August 14, 2026.
Update on Physicians’ Free Speech
The Kory v. Bonta case (Docket No. 2:24-cv-1), which we last wrote about in our May 29, 2026 newsletter, continues in the Eastern District of California, but with an important update: in an order published on August 5, 2026, the District Court granted physician plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction “as to physician plaintiffs only.” Leaving California medical regulators currently barred from investigating or disciplining the three physician plaintiffs based on their COVID-19 medical advice – which ranged from recommending ivermectin as treatment to spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. Notably, Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy nonprofit founded by Secretary Kennedy, is funding the lawsuit.
As background, this case began in February 2024 when plaintiff physicians filed their motion for preliminary injunction, asserting First Amendment challenges related to the California Medical Board’s power to discipline physicians for COVID-19 related speech that contradicts the position of public health authorities. In April 2024, the District Court denied their motion; in November 2024, Ninth Circuit affirmed denial, and in January 2025, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari and again in April 2026 when renewed following the Chiles v. Salazar case.
Following this, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary injunction in late June 2026, which argued that the Ninth Circuit decision was abrogated by Chiles v. Salazar opinion, which we wrote about in our April 10, 2026 newsletter, and First Choice Women’s Res. Centers v. Davenport, both 2026 SCOTUS decisions. Defendants – California officials – opposed this motion, arguing “the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming this Court’s [2024] ruling was left undisturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court.” However, the District Court found that due to Chiles being the most pertinent for questions related to the constitutionality of regulations of physician speech, physician plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, as the Board’s policy regulates the content of speech and discriminates based on viewpoint.
As stated above, this injunction only applies to the three named physician plaintiffs and it does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, which will continue as the court considers the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. We will continue to provide updates on this case as it unfolds.
We’re Hiring! The Center for Health Policy and Law is seeking a Program Director for the Salus Populi project. Please share widely with your networks or apply today!
Partner With Us! Please take this survey to let us know about local and state cases impacting public health or health equity, and to help us build our network of outside counsel. (password: amicus)