Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

South Florida

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

The Supreme Court recently ruled for the second time that federal district courts likely lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to hear challenges to terminations of federal grants. The first such ruling came in April of this year, when the Court granted an emergency stay in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf">California v. Department of Education</a>. On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued another emergency stay, in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a103_kh7p.pdf">NIH v. American Public Health Association,</a>&nbsp;reaffirming the view that challenges to grant terminations are, in substance, breach of contract actions for money damages that belong in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

core/paragraph

Since&nbsp;California,&nbsp;several lower courts have nevertheless asserted jurisdiction over grantee lawsuits seeking reinstatement of terminated grants, often distinguishing&nbsp;California&nbsp;on procedural or factual grounds. We have previously&nbsp;<a href="https://governmentcontractsnavigator.com/2025/05/22/disagreeing-with-the-supreme-court-the-ninth-circuit-and-two-district-courts-find-apa-jurisdiction-in-challenges-to-federal-contract-and-grant-terminations/#more-4369">written</a>&nbsp;about some of those cases (including&nbsp;Massachusetts v. Kennedy,&nbsp;which was later consolidated with&nbsp;NIH). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in&nbsp;NIH&nbsp;is an interim order, the jurisdictional question may now be functionally settled, particularly given Justice Gorsuch’s admonishment to lower courts that even if they “sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions…they are never free to defy them. When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” Following&nbsp;NIH, we expect terminated grantees will largely be forced into the Court of Federal Claims, which generally does not have authority under the Tucker Act to grant the equitable relief—reinstatement of grants—that many of them are seeking.

Read the full post on our&nbsp;<a href="https://governmentcontractsnavigator.com/2025/09/05/supreme-court-weighs-in-for-a-second-time-on-jurisdiction-over-grant-termination-cases/">Government Contracts Navigator</a>&nbsp;blog.

Aerospace, Defense & Government Services

Dominique L. Casimir

Sara N. Gerber

Government Contracts

Claims

Regulatory Compliance

Blog Post

Publications

Trump Administration Resource Hub

Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases

Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases

Offices

Stay Connected