How could loss of a billion dollars in grants not cause irreparable harm to these projects?
There may be some legal arcana involved but that was the stated reason.

I don't think this is the 'final answer' on the topic though fortunately. I think the context is that plaintiffs would not be irreparably harmed without injunctive relief at this moment. Which I disagree with based on my limited understanding re: how such things work, but of course INAL.

Hopefully one of our many real-life lawyers on DU will soon come round and fill us in on the deets

The court ruled that it was bound by precedent to find that it lacked jurisdiction over the suit to the extent it sought monetary relief relating to past grants -- such cases are contractual in nature and must be considered by the Federal Court of Claims, not the District Court. The irreparable harm analysis did not have anything to do with the billion dollars in grants that were retrospectively voided.

I read the article. I don't really care about the details.
If it was really that, then the article was horribly misleading because the stated reason (for the second time) is vacuous.
If the judges used thar reason, they are idiots. If they didn't but it was reported as it was, the author is an idiot.
I shouldn't have to review an entire judicial decision to avoid being misinformed.
Did you bother to write the author to tell them the mistated the reasons?
I didn't think so.

As I noted the decision distinguishes between two sets of claims brought by the plaintiffs. The first claim challenged the decision to purge a billion dollars in previously authorized grants. That claim was dismissed not because the loss of those previous grants was not irreparable harm. It was dismissed because consistent with established precedent, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear that claim, which should have been filed with the federal court of claims. So the district court never opined on the irreparable harm issue as it relates to the prior grants.

The second claim asserted by the plaintiffs challenged the revision of the procedures and standards to be applied in assessing future grants. That prospective claim was properly presented to the district court. But, not surprisingly, the court couldn’t find irreparable harm since the procedures apply to grants that haven’t yet been sought and that may or may not be denied.

The article made this distinction clear—quoting the opinion as follows: “The Court finds that it likely lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ retrospective APA claims … [and] Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm flowing from their prospective APA claims and have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims,”

So you’re right I didn’t write to the author since the article wasn’t misleading

You've been wrong before. You'll get over it.
And this conversation long ago became boring.

M sure you think you’re clever. Also not.

Or both?

And being blackmailed.

We don't need to rehash

I don't think this female Biden appointee would be one, but sure, maybe some!

Women have husbands, sons, brothers.

Than I am to believe in dead pedo scumbag tentacles, and leave it at that

That would make her an excellent judge.

And against WE THE PEOPLE.

Like, is that still held up by the courts, or did the regime manage to get their way on that one in the interim? I'm wondering if this is actually a 'double-whammy', grants cuts + admin fee cuts?

Disappointed to see that the judge in this case is a Biden appointee (Jia M. Cobb).

I bet both Xi and Putin are pleased as punch the the US is forfeiting it's scientific leadership under IQ47

I saw threads for the "related" one that was filed in Boston and I haven't seen any updates to that since June. That "related" one was filed a month before the OP's case. So I'm guessing the stay is still in place for that "related" one.

Because the 15% cap will probably cause a lot of grantees to just go "welp, we simply cannot do this science if the cap is that low, we'll lose too much money". I suspect it would have a big ripple effect that exceeds the actual $ amount difference between 15% and the previous allotments, which I've read have been up to 50% in the past.

From what I've read, "administrative costs" in this context does not just mean "paying the pencil pushers and bureaucrats", it includes like buying equipment needed to do the science, paying the labs power bill, all sorts of stuff.

Are we great again yet?

An indefinite amount of time.

I'm curious as to how you would respond to the court's legal reasoning, since you think the judge was "stupid."

It all balances out on the scales of justice.

If I tried to get out of a contact, the court would make me pay.

And as a contract based claim, the plaintiffs need to bring their lawsuit to the Federal Court of Claims.

Let's parse this: “preference some groups at the expense of others” and would no longer support “[r]esearch
projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or
characteristics.” OK, so subgroup based on protected class, basically DEI shit. So in "STUPID AMERICA", which this administration obviously wants, the Merits don't matter? Yep. That is the rule. Oh, and if it's a race
"out of bounds" to the incoherent color-mindedness of this admin, no funding for you! I would hate to be the professor telling his just-married Grad student (from the newly tariffed country X) with his first child (US BORN), "I'm sorry we didn't get the funding that was supposed to be funded". This shit is just wrong, man.

Yes, and that’s not the point.

The point is that any president would be so reckless and irresponsible to do such a thing.

Yes sir, about half. And with the trog we have as president (and republican party) so destructive to our Union, that even simple science funding is under pressure. But yes; "Other statutory provisions also require the Foundation to support underrepresented groups in STEM fields" ... that says it all IMHO.

Before I find the Judges name?

They're real quick to publish the names of those who oppose their bullshit, Who is this judge?

Judge Jia M. Cobb

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3528477

... very concise explanation of the legal premise for the decision. As unspeakably despicable as Trump's actions regarding scientific research – and everything else that evil sonofabitch does – it appears that the fault lies not with the judge, but with the plaintiff's lawyers, who should have known better than to bring the case before a judge who has no legal jurisdiction in a case of this sort.

Let's shovel any extra cash into the arms of the billionaire class. Great idea stupid mf'ers.