Support
← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Association of American Universities v. Department of Health & Human Services

No. 1:25-cv-10346 District · Decided
Executive order authority equitable relief

Legal Issues

Executive order authorityequitable relief
The Law · How the Case Works

Overview

Overview

A coalition of state attorneys general sued the National Institute of Health, the acting NIH Director, HHS, and the acting HHS secretary over the Trump administration's new 14% cap on overhead for federal research grants, alleging that it violates the Administrative Procedures Act. This case was consolidated with similar cases brought by the Association of American Medical Colleges and Association of American Universities.

The Issue

Issue

Whether the Trump administration's 14% cap on overhead costs for federal research grants violates the Administrative Procedures Act by imposing a substantive rule without notice-and-comment rulemaking and/or constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action.

The Rules

Rule

The APA requires federal agencies to follow notice-and-comment procedures before issuing substantive rules affecting parties' rights. Agency action is subject to judicial review and must not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

The Application

Analysis

The agencies imposed the overhead cap through executive action without formal rulemaking procedures, and plaintiffs argued the cap lacked rational factual support and improperly disregarded the agencies' existing authority to set indirect cost rates through negotiation and indirect cost agreements.

The Conclusion

Judge Angel Kelley of the District of Massachusetts entered a permanent injunction against the NIH indirect-cost cap; the First Circuit affirmed on January 5, 2026, and its mandate issued February 27, 2026. The government let its Supreme Court filing deadline lapse without seeking review, making the injunction final. The Association of American Universities has since moved for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act as the prevailing party, and that fee litigation remained active through at least August 2026.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
FiledFeb 10, 2025
Judge Angel Kelley 46
CL Statusterminated
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

No Supreme Court data for this case.

Don't miss the next one
Subscribe on Substack ↗ Watch on YouTube ↗

Docket

CourtListener ↗

Outcome History (6)

  1. Feb 11, 2025 District
    TRO denied Relief denied

    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order denied as moot.

  2. Feb 21, 2025 District
    TRO granted Temporary relief

    Existing temporary restraining order extended until resolution of preliminary injunction request.

  3. Mar 5, 2025 District
    Preliminary injunction granted Temporary relief

    Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction granted, enjoining defendants from implementing policy.

  4. Apr 4, 2025 District
    Merits judgment Temporary relief Final

    Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered, converting preliminary injunction to permanent injunction.

  5. Apr 4, 2025 District
    Stay denied Relief denied

    Defendants' Motion to Stay All Deadlines denied as moot.

  6. Jan 8, 2026 Circuit
    Reversed Relief denied Final

    USCA Judgment reversing the district court's decision.

Federal Court TMR-29ca345d Research Grant Cap Nov 8, 2026
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support