Lawyer Halts Proposed Restriction on NIH Financing following 22 State's Legal Challenge
On February 12, a federal judge temporarily halted the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) plan to cap indirect cost payments on research grants. The judge, U.S. District Court Judge Angel Kelley, granted a temporary restraining order following a lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general earlier in the day. This order initially applied to the plaintiff states, but it was later expanded nationwide in response to another lawsuit[1][2][3].
The NIH announced on February 10 that it would cap indirect cost reimbursement for university research at 15%. Indirect costs involve various overhead expenses, such as facility maintenance, equipment upgrades, lab operations, depreciation, utilities, support staff, research compliance, legal expenses, and administrator salaries. Universities rely heavily on indirect cost reimbursement by grantors to cover these expenses. A 15% cap would leave them with significant budget gaps to fill[1].
The NIH's social media post suggested the policy change could save the federal government over $4 billion annually, but the calculation method was not explained[1]. The states listed as plaintiffs include Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. They are all represented by Democrat AGs[1].
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claims the administration's "arbitrary and capricious" act "contravenes Congress’s express directives in the appropriation acts governing the NIH" and violates other federal regulations[1]. The plaintiffs also argue that the NIH lacked the authority to make the change and failed to adhere to notice and comment rulemaking procedures[1].
The states bringing the lawsuit would stand to lose billions in research funding if the new NIH indirect cost policy were implemented. Massachusetts, for instance, could lose over $549 million, while New York could see losses of more than $600 million[1]. Several medical associations and research universities have also filed legal challenges against the NIH policy[1].
The American Council on Education supports the lawsuit, stating the policy's impact on medical research and training is devastating, and it violates regulatory frameworks and administrative law principles[1]. The council looks forward to presenting its case in court[1].
- The American Council on Education, an organization that represents research universities across the nation, has expressed its support for the federal lawsuit challenging the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) decision to cap indirect cost payments on research grants.
- The NIH's policy change on indirect cost reimbursement, which would limit payments to 15%, has prompted indirect cost funding concerns among research universities, including those represented by medical associations that have also filed legal challenges.
- Besides the states listed in the lawsuit, several medical associations and research universities, such as those that rely heavily on indirect cost reimbursement to support various expenses, are facing potential budget gaps resulting from the NIH's proposed funding cap.
- The National Institutes of Health's plan to cap indirect cost payments, which is being challenged in a federal lawsuit, may impact the direct funding these institutions receive from the National Institutes of Health, particularly from funding sources like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) itself and the National Institutes of Health's subsidiary, the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
