Every morning in a lab, we rely on one thing: funding. Without money, there is no work. Two new court fights are changing that reality, and here at the University, we are already caught in it.
In February, the National Institute of Health (NIH) announced a sudden cap on indirect costs: the money that keeps labs running by paying for staff, equipment, and utilities. It dropped the cap to 15%, significantly below what most universities need to cover their actual expenses. UR joined a group of 12 universities to sue the NIH, warning the cuts would damage research programs across campus.
In April, Rochester filed another suit, this time against the Department of Energy, over similar limits on research funding. The University said the change could cost up to $25 million in lost support. By September, UR reported at least twenty terminated federal grants, totaling $9 million in losses. That is not a policy debate — it is stalled research, frozen hiring, and real people caught in the middle.
These local fights echo what’s been happening on a national level. As an example, the Environmental Protection Agency ended its Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program earlier this year, and tribes, nonprofits, and local governments sued, saying the agency broke the law by cutting the program without proper review. During the Appalachian Voices v. EPA case, on Sept. 25, a federal judge denied their request to keep funds active while the case proceeds, saying that the defendants did not show “irreparable harm.” This decision matters because it sets a precedent: while lawyers prepare appeals, the research stays on hold. . For scientists this results in lost data, scattered teams, and broken community projects that may never recover.
The second case on the national stage, American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health, went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that if grantees want to recover money from terminated grants, they cannot sue in a regular federal court. Instead, they must go through the Court of Federal Claims, a small court that handles contract disputes. That court cannot order agencies to restart programs; it can only issue payment after years of hearings. The message to scientists is simple: you can be paid later, but your work will still die now.
This new legal map means agencies can cut research funding midstream and face little short-term pushback. It means researchers at universities like ours can successfully navigate the challenges of winning a federal grant and still lose funding before the project is done. Moreover, it means students and researchers have to fight in slow courts that move long after experiments, studies, and degrees have ended.
Research cannot halt cleanly. A five-year study often cannot pause for two years at the demand of a court. You cannot restart a long-term health trial or climate survey and expect to fill in the blanks. Winning a check years later will not rebuild the time and effort lost.
Universities are trying to resist. UR’s lawsuits show that campuses are not staying silent. However, the cases also reveal the limits of that fight. The courts have decided that harm must be “irreparable” before they step in, but anyone who has ever done research knows that if a project ends early, the harm is permanent. The law may not see it that way, but science does.
For students, this is not an abstract problem. If you are an undergraduate hoping to work in a lab next semester, that lab might not have funding. If you are a graduate student, your stipend often depends on a grant that could be cut. If you are an early-career faculty member, you could lose your lab before you even earn tenure. Behind every policy memo is a student, a salary, and a career.
The next few months will decide whether these lawsuits succeed or fade. The D.C. Circuit Court will rule on the Appalachian Voices appeal. The Court of Federal Claims will begin to see new cases based on the NIH decision. UR’s lawsuits are still in progress, and the outcomes will determine whether research can be protected or if science will continue to be treated as a contract dispute.
This issue is bigger than just one school or field. When courts decide how research money flows, they decide what questions get answered. Climate, health, and technology studies depend on stable grants. If that stability disappears, the discoveries do too. For now, the best we can do is pay attention. Students and faculty should ask how the University plans to protect its research programs. Congress should intervene to ensure that federal agencies cannot cancel grants without due process. Universities should prepare to bridge funding gaps and defend their researchers.
The science we do in our labs, classrooms, and field sites deserves better than being dictated by court calendars. The University should not have to fight in Court to keep doing research — but right now, that is precisely where the future of research is being decided.
