By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent, highly complex Supreme Court case, *National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association*, the justices issued an obscure order regarding the Trump administration’s cancellation of public health grants, many of which were for critical research projects. The central issue revolved around a jurisdictional dispute: which court should hear the case, the district court or the Court of Federal Claims? A fractured court, with no clear majority, ultimately resulted in a split decision where the district court was the proper venue for some parts of the case and the claims court was the venue for others. This complex ruling, as Justice Jackson points out, appears to be designed to obstruct the rule of law, ensuring that the administration’s actions will remain unchallenged.
Read the original article here
The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants. It seems like every time the Supreme Court weighs in on something lately, the result is a tangled mess of legal jargon that leaves everyone scratching their heads. This time, it involves a decision about the Trump administration’s decision to cancel a whole bunch of federal health grants. Apparently, the ruling is so complicated, so full of legal twists and turns, that even the judges themselves might get lost trying to understand it. One of the justices even called it “Calvinball jurisprudence,” suggesting that the rules are constantly changing and seem designed to favor one side, in this case, the administration that made the cancellations in the first place.
The whole situation stems from the Trump administration’s decision to axe grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These grants were funding research into important areas like suicide prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer’s disease, and heart disease. The reason for the cancellations? Executive orders that targeted grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), gender identity, or the COVID-19 pandemic. A lower court actually ruled that this was illegal, calling it “arbitrary and capricious” because the executive orders didn’t give the NIH officials clear guidelines on which grants to cancel. It was a vague decree that basically left the NIH officials guessing about which programs should be cut, which seems to run counter to the whole idea of clear and fair legal processes.
It feels like the court’s decisions are no longer focused on the American people. People are left wondering why crucial health research is being canceled. It’s hard not to feel like the decisions are driven by something beyond the law itself, with accusations that the court is trying to get more money to the wealthy or controlling the masses to make them easier to manipulate. The core principle seems to be that decisions are made to benefit specific groups, and that’s clearly not what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about.
The focus on the law seems to be shifting away from the core of democracy. The president and his administration are not dictators. Congress is supposed to make the laws. The Supreme Court is not intended to bend the rules, but that’s what the system has devolved into. The court is now perceived as making rulings that favor certain outcomes, rather than adhering to the Constitution. The implications are clear. If the court can’t be trusted to apply the law fairly, then the very foundation of the legal system is weakened. It’s all enough to make anyone wonder if the whole system is breaking down.
It’s as if the court is playing a different game than the rest of the country. The rulings, at times, appear to be completely disconnected from reality. The whole process is becoming a parody of itself. It’s not about interpreting the law; it’s about picking and choosing which parts to follow. When legal principles are discarded, the system unravels. The situation feels like a crisis, or worse, that the core of American governance has been abandoned completely.
Ultimately, this entire situation highlights a growing concern about the integrity of the court, and the legal system as a whole. A court is supposed to be the final word, the one institution that’s above politics, where the law is the law and applied equally to everyone. But when the rulings are indecipherable, when they appear to be driven by outside factors and when the decisions feel like they are designed to favor certain outcomes, then people will start to question the very foundation of the system.