Trump Secures Another Supreme Court Win: DEI is Dying [WATCH]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that President Donald Trump can move forward with cutting $783 million in federal funding tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

The ruling, issued Thursday, lifts a lower court order that had temporarily blocked the administration’s move to halt DEI-related funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Independent reporter Nick Sortor noted the decision in a post on X, highlighting the immediate impact on federal grant distribution.

🚨 BREAKING – SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP: Allows Trump to TERMINATE DEI and gender-based grants to the National Institutes of Health, many of which were begun under Dr. Fauci, in a 5-4 ruling

Activist judges LOSE AGAIN! 🔥

Wokeism has NO PLACE in our health system. pic.twitter.com/yqtChsR5ib

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 21, 2025

Trump’s Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

The Court’s decision grants a partial stay in the case, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

[esi random_video_player ttl=”0″]

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who would have denied the application in full.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote separately, criticizing lower court judges for disregarding prior Supreme Court instructions in similar cases.

“All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect ‘the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress,’” Gorsuch stated.

The Trump administration has sought to eliminate federal research grants that prioritize DEI-related objectives, gender identity studies, or COVID-19 projects. Under the new guidelines, grant awards will not be based on race.

More than a dozen states filed lawsuits in March challenging the cuts under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In response, the NIH has adjusted its funding policies in recent months to reflect the administration’s directives.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals previously declined to intervene in the matter, leaving the lower court’s order in place. However, the Supreme Court’s majority noted that the government would face irreparable harm if forced to distribute the disputed funds before the legal questions were resolved.

“The Government faces such harm here,” the opinion stated.

“The plaintiffs do not state that they will repay grant money if the Government ultimately prevails. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention that they lack the resources to continue their research projects without federal funding is inconsistent with the proposition that they have the resources to make the Government whole for money already spent.”

The Court further explained that the District Court had “declared unlawful and vacated both the guidance and the individual terminations, and the First Circuit denied the Government’s request for a stay.

Both courts treated NIH’s termination of grants and its issuance of guidance as distinct agency actions. The Government sought a stay from this Court.”

The majority opinion also raised questions about the lower court’s jurisdiction, stating that challenges to grant terminations likely belonged in federal claims court rather than in district court.

The case now returns to the lower courts for further proceedings.

The ruling marks another significant legal victory for the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back federal DEI initiatives.

The Supreme Court’s ruling came on the same day that an appeals court threw out a $500 million civil fraud penalty against President Trump.

That penalty stemmed from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit during the 2024 campaign.

Both decisions underscore a series of ongoing legal battles surrounding Trump, his administration’s policies, and efforts to undo rulings and programs implemented during the previous administration.