Perera v. NIH lawsuit claims grant terminations breach First Amendment and ACA nondiscrimination protections.
NIH’s abrupt termination of translational research grants to Drs. Minoli Perera and Melissa Simon—two leading pharmacogenomics researchers—has ignited a constitutional showdown over viewpoint discrimination in federal science funding. The complaint, filed in Maryland federal court, alleges NIH violated the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act by defunding research on racial and ethnic health disparities after the researchers publicly criticized NIH’s funding criteria. At stake: whether the government can condition biomedical research funding on adherence to political or ideological standards without running afoul of constitutional and statutory nondiscrimination protections.
NIH’s Grant Termination Policy and the Lawsuit
NIH issued a policy statement, requiring all grant applicants to certify that their research aligns with the agency’s mission and values. Drs. Perera and Simon, whose work focuses on pharmacogenomic differences in drug response among racial and ethnic minorities, challenged the policy in a Nature Medicine op-ed, arguing it undermines health equity. Shortly thereafter, NIH terminated their grants, citing non-compliance. The agency did not provide pre-termination notice or an opportunity to cure. The terminations followed defunding actions against researchers in other areas NIH deems ideologically misaligned.
The First Amendment Claim: Viewpoint Discrimination in Government Funding of Scientific Research
Plaintiffs allege NIH’s termination of their grants constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, arguing:
- NIH’s policy is not viewpoint-neutral—it disfavors research that acknowledges while favoring research aligned with certain policy priorities.
- The Supreme Court’s precedents prohibit the government from denying funding based on the ideological content of speech.
- NIH’s selective enforcement suggests retaliation for protected speech, which is questionable under precedent (Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)).
NIH’s likely defense may involve the government speech doctrine, arguing that NIH-funded research is under its message control.
Open question: Is scientific research more akin to government speech (allowing viewpoint restrictions) or private speech (prohibiting them)?
This case has broad implications for the role of government in shaping scientific inquiry. The relief sought includes reinstatement of the terminated grants and a declaration that NIH’s policy violates federal constitutional and statutory protections against discrimination. More broadly, the lawsuit challenges NIH’s ability to condition research funding based on its subjective perception of ideological alignment with its mission, with possible chilling effects on academic freedom and innovation in scientific research.
The defendants, including NIH and high-ranking officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, must answer the complaint or file preliminary motions in the coming weeks. The court will likely need to address not only the barriers to viewpoint discrimination in research funding but also evaluate the role of governmental priority settings against constitutional protections.
David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.
From the Complaint Public Court Record
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND COMPLAINT 1.Plaintiffs, Drs. Minoli Perera and Melissa Simon, bring this declaratory and injunctive relief action under the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a), stemming from Defendants’ terminating federal grant awards issued by the National Institute of Health based on unlawful animus toward certain ideological viewpoints and protected groups. DRS. MINOLI PERERA & MELISSA SIMON AND MELLISSA SIMON ) ) Plaintiffs, v. ) ) ) Case No. 8:26-cv-2389 ) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH; 9000 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20892 (Montgomery County), ) ) ) JAY BHATTACHARYA, in his official capacity as Director of the National Institute of Health; 9000 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20892 (Montgomery County), ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTHMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Washinton, D.C. 20201, ) ) ) ) ) ROBERT F. KENNEDY, in his official capacity as Director of United States Department of Health and Human Services; 200 Independence Ave. SW, Washinton, D.C. 20201, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) )
2 PARTIES 2.Plaintiff Dr. Minoli Perera is an Associate Professor within the Department of Pharmacology and Center for Pharmacogenomics at the University of Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Dr. Perera has expertise in pharmacokinetics, clinical pharmacology, and human genetics. Plaintiff Perera’s laboratory at Northwestern University focuses on pharmacogenomics (using a patient’s genome to predict drug response). She has received awards as the Genomics and Health Disparities Lecturer, and the Leon I. Goldberg Early Investigator Award from the American Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. She is the current President of the Pharmacogenomics Global Research Network, and she is an editorial board member of the Pharmacogenomics Journal and Frontiers in Pharmacogenomi
Questions about this topic: david@newmanbrunk.com