3 days ago
NY District Court intervenes in Trump-era education cuts, protects humanities research grants
NY District Court intervenes in Trump-era education cuts
A federal court in New York has blocked the cancellation of humanities research grants by the Trump administration, calling the move a likely violation of the First Amendment. The court's decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the Authors Guild and other academic organisations after dozens of federal grants were abruptly terminated earlier this year.
The ruling, issued by Judge Colleen McMahon of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, halts the defunding of projects that had already been approved by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Many of the cancelled grants supported work in areas related to diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and controversial aspects of American history.
Focus on DEI and history projects raised legal concerns
According to the court documents, several grants were cancelled because they were perceived to support DEI-related themes or politically sensitive research.
One such project involved a scholarly study of the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. Internal government spreadsheets reportedly flagged such research under 'DEI' categories before terminating the funding.
The termination notices also cited executive orders promoting 'biological truth' and aiming to eliminate 'radical indoctrination' — language Judge McMahon found problematic. She concluded that the government's actions appeared to be viewpoint-based discrimination, which is unconstitutional.
Authors Guild and scholars challenge the defunding
The Authors Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May, arguing that the defunding effort not only disrupted research but also threatened academic freedom and violated due process. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which led the defunding campaign, was accused of bringing federally supported humanities work to a 'screeching halt.'
The Guild's case is one of several filed by national scholarly associations, including the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.
While the judge declined temporary relief for some groups, she ruled narrowly in favor of the Authors Guild to preserve the current funding status until the case is resolved.
Court defends academic freedom over political influence
In her ruling, Judge McMahon acknowledged that a presidential administration has the right to set policy priorities, especially as the US approaches its 250th anniversary in 2026. However, she clarified that such discretion does not extend to censoring scholarship or punishing projects based on ideology.
'Agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment,' the judge wrote. 'Nor does it give the government the right to edit history.'
Implications for the future of federally funded research
The case now moves toward a full trial, but the preliminary injunction has already been hailed by many in the academic community as a critical defense of intellectual freedom. The decision temporarily protects previously approved grants and signals broader scrutiny of political interference in federally funded education and research.
With rising tensions around what should be taught, funded, or silenced in the classroom, this legal battle is shaping up to be a defining moment for the future of the humanities in America.
TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
here
.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
