What Is the UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit?
The UC researchers grant lawsuit is a federal case challenging the mass termination of previously approved University of California research grants, not a class action seeking individual payouts. It was filed in June 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by UC faculty and researchers, led by named plaintiff Neeta Thakur, against President Donald Trump and the heads of several federal grant-making agencies.
The case is docketed as Thakur, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 25-cv-04737-RFL, before U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin. It challenges two separate practices: agencies canceling grants through brief form letters that give no real explanation, and agencies canceling grants under two 2025 executive orders that bar funding for research tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion topics.
Defendants named across the case's amended complaints include the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Health and Human Services' National Institutes of Health division, sued over grants terminated at UC campuses including Berkeley, Irvine, and UCLA.
“This action was filed in June of 2025 by University of California ("UC") researchers, after a wave of en masse federal grant terminations via form letters abruptly cancelled the funding for many of the researchers' projects.”
Source: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Thakur, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 25-cv-04737-RFL, Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification, Document 182, at 1 (January 30, 2026)
Why Was the UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit Filed?
UC researchers filed this lawsuit because federal agencies began canceling already-awarded grants in 2025 using two methods the plaintiffs say violate federal law and the Constitution. The complaint alleges agencies sent bare form-letter terminations with no real justification, and separately canceled grants tied to disfavored research topics under DEI-focused executive orders.
A July 2026 court filing reported that the White House OMB had used keyword screening, flagging grant proposals containing words like "diversity," "gender," or "equity," to help identify research for termination. Plaintiffs' attorneys say this practice supports their claim that agencies targeted research based on its viewpoint rather than on any legitimate funding concern.
The case grew after the June 2025 filing. In early October 2025, during a federal government shutdown, the Department of Energy terminated 321 grants worth more than $7.5 billion, which plaintiffs allege disproportionately hit states that voted Democratic in 2024, prompting two new named plaintiffs to join and DoE to be added as a defendant with live claims.
What Harms Does the UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit Allege?
The UC researchers grant lawsuit alleges one primary category of harm: the sudden loss of previously committed federal research funding, which halted ongoing scientific and academic work at UC campuses. The definitions below explain the underlying concepts in plain language.
Loss of Committed Research Funding
A grant termination in this context means a federal agency ends its funding for a research project it had already approved and begun paying for, before the work is finished.
The court's January 2026 order describes named plaintiff Dr. Plamen Atanassov of UC Irvine losing Department of Energy funding for projects including a planned $1.2 billion hydrogen hub in California and work on U.S.-manufactured fuel cell catalysts. Named plaintiff Dr. Louise Wells Bedsworth of UC Berkeley lost a DoE assistance agreement worth more than $2.6 million for a direct-air-capture feasibility study.
Viewpoint-Based Targeting of Research Topics
Viewpoint discrimination is a First Amendment claim alleging the government restricted funding or speech because of the specific opinions or subject matter it expresses, not for a neutral, content-independent reason.
Plaintiffs allege that grants addressing topics such as wildfire smoke exposure in marginalized communities, racial equity in STEM education, and landfill methane emissions were terminated because of their subject matter under Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, which direct agencies to defund DEI-related research. Judge Lin's earlier rulings found this practice likely amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
What Is the Current Status of the UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit?
The current status of the UC researchers grant lawsuit is mixed: plaintiffs have won two preliminary injunctions and four provisional class certifications, while a separate equal-protection claim against the Department of Energy was denied class treatment in January 2026 for lack of evidence at this early stage.
Thakur, et al. v. Trump, et al.
Judge Rita F. Lin has issued two preliminary injunctions, known in the case's record as Thakur I and Thakur III, together barring the EPA, NEH, NSF, Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, and HHS-NIH from enforcing unexplained form-letter terminations, and barring the EPA, NEH, NSF, and DoT from terminating grants under the DEI-related executive orders.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Case Number | 3:25-cv-04737-RFL |
| Judge | Rita F. Lin |
| Filed | June 4, 2025 |
| Plaintiffs | Named UC faculty/researchers and four provisionally certified classes of UC grantees |
| Latest Ruling | Equal Protection claim against DoE denied preliminary injunction and class certification, January 30, 2026 |
The government appealed both injunctions to the Ninth Circuit. In December 2025, the Ninth Circuit partially stayed the injunction as to plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act claim, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening ruling in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, while leaving the viewpoint-discrimination injunction in place. Plaintiffs have asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider that partial stay.
Did the UC Researchers Win Money in the Grant Lawsuit?
No. The UC researchers grant lawsuit does not seek money damages for individual researchers, because plaintiffs asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief restoring grant funding, not a damages payout.
The practical value of the rulings so far is restored access to previously committed grant funding for covered researchers and institutions, not a cash settlement. A separate claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, which could have supported broader monetary-adjacent relief, remains on hold at the Ninth Circuit's direction pending further guidance from that appeals court.
Latest UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit Updates
UC researchers grant lawsuit updates track one federal case, not a consolidated multidistrict litigation, so this section follows the docket's own procedural history. As of this writing, two injunctions remain in effect while an equal-protection claim against the Department of Energy proceeds toward summary judgment.
UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit Timeline
Court Denies Class Treatment for the DoE Equal Protection Claim
Judge Lin allowed plaintiffs to add two new named plaintiffs and file a third amended complaint, but denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification on the equal-protection claim against the Department of Energy, finding the record did not yet show the October 2025 terminations were driven solely by political motive.
Ninth Circuit Partially Stays One Injunction
The Ninth Circuit granted a partial stay of the Thakur I injunction as it applies to plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act claim, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association that the APA does not waive sovereign immunity for this type of claim, while leaving the viewpoint-discrimination injunction intact.
Department of Energy Terminates 321 Grants Worth Over $7.5 Billion
DoE announced the termination of 321 financial awards totaling more than $7.5 billion the day after OMB Director Russell Vought publicly stated that nearly $8 billion in what he called "Green New Scam" funding was being cancelled, adding a new set of claims and two new named plaintiffs to the case.
White House Admits Using Keyword Screening on Grant Proposals
Court filings reported that the White House Office of Management and Budget had used keyword searches across hundreds of grant proposals to flag research for termination, which plaintiffs' attorneys said was evidence supporting their viewpoint-discrimination claim over nearly $2 billion in earlier terminations.
UC Researchers File the Original Lawsuit
Neeta Thakur and a group of University of California faculty and researchers filed the original class action complaint in the Northern District of California against President Trump and federal grant-making agencies over form-letter grant terminations.
How Have the Defendants Responded to the UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit?
The federal government has defended the terminations in court filings as a lawful exercise of executive branch authority to set its own funding priorities, and has appealed both preliminary injunctions to the Ninth Circuit.
In termination letters cited in the court record, agencies including the Department of Energy stated the cancellations were based on "changes in agency priorities," without identifying a specific problem with the underlying research. Judge Lin's rulings found this boilerplate language did not satisfy the agencies' obligation to give a reasoned explanation for ending an already-awarded grant.
On the equal-protection claim, the government argued the record did not yet establish that the October 2025 Department of Energy terminations were aimed specifically at Democratic-leaning states, noting that DoE had considered more than 600 awards for potential termination, including some in Republican-leaning states. Judge Lin's January 2026 order agreed there was not yet enough evidence at this early stage to support a preliminary injunction on that specific claim, while directing the case toward cross-motions for summary judgment once a fuller administrative record is produced.
How Does the UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit Compare to the Judge Talwani Grant Lawsuit?
The two cases are related in subject matter but are separate, distinct lawsuits. Both challenge Trump administration grant terminations using a similar legal theory, but they involve different plaintiffs, different defendants, different courts, and different underlying regulations or executive orders.
| Case | Plaintiffs | Court | Core Legal Theory |
|---|---|---|---|
| UC Researchers Grant Lawsuit (this page) | UC faculty/researchers, four provisional classes | N.D. California, Judge Rita F. Lin | Unexplained form-letter terminations and viewpoint discrimination under DEI executive orders |
| Judge Talwani Grant Lawsuit (related, separate case) | 20 states, 3 governors, D.C. | D. Massachusetts, Judge Indira Talwani | Whether the Termination Clause regulation permits cutting grants for post-award priority changes |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the UC researchers grant lawsuit about?
The UC researchers grant lawsuit, Thakur v. Trump, is a federal case in which University of California faculty and researchers sued the Trump administration and several federal agencies over the mass termination of previously approved research grants, arguing the terminations were unexplained or based on unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Is the UC researchers grant lawsuit a class action?
Yes, in part. Judge Lin has provisionally certified four classes of UC grantees for two of the case's claims, but the plaintiffs are UC researchers and institutions, not a public pool of consumers, and there is no open intake process for outside individuals to join.
Did the UC researchers win money damages?
No. The case seeks injunctive and declaratory relief restoring canceled grant funding, not money damages, and no settlement fund exists for individual researchers.
What did Judge Lin actually rule in the case?
Judge Lin has issued two preliminary injunctions barring several agencies from enforcing unexplained form-letter grant terminations and terminations made under DEI-related executive orders, while denying, as of January 2026, a separate request to block Department of Energy terminations on equal-protection grounds for lack of sufficient evidence at that stage.
Is the case over?
No. The government has appealed both injunctions to the Ninth Circuit, which has partially stayed one of them, and the equal-protection claim against the Department of Energy is proceeding toward cross-motions for summary judgment.
Is this the same case as the Judge Talwani grant lawsuit?
No. The two cases challenge similar Trump administration grant-termination practices using related legal theories, but they have different plaintiffs, different defendants, and are pending before different judges in different federal courts.