New York v. Nat'l Sci. Found.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge
• Citation: New York v. Nat'l Sci. Found., 793 F.Supp.3d 562 (S.D. N.Y. 2025)
• Docket Number: 25 Civ. 4452 (JPC)
• Decision Date: 01 August 2025
• Parties: State of NEW YORK, State of Hawaii, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Illinois, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Washington, and State of Wisconsin, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and Brian Stone, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the National Science Foundation, Defendants.

793 F.Supp.3d 562

State of NEW YORK, State of Hawaii, State of California, State of Colorado,State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Illinois,State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico,State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Washington, andState of Wisconsin, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and Brian Stone, in his official capacityas Acting Director of the National Science Foundation, Defendants.

25 Civ. 4452 (JPC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed August 1, 2025

Colleen Kelly Faherty, Jessica Grace Ranucci, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of New York.

Caitlyn Babington Carpenter, David Dana Day, Sianha Michael Gualano, Kalikoonalani Diara Fernandes, State of Hawaii - Department of the Attorney General, Appellate Division, Honolulu, HI, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Hawaii.

Cheryl Lynn Feiner, California Attorney General's Office, Civil Division, San Francisco, CA, Jose Pablo Galan De La Cruz, California Attorney General's Office Health, Education, and Welfare, San Francisco, CA, Maureen Chinyere Onyeagbako, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General Health, Education, and Welfare, Sacramento, CA, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of California.

Lauren Kelsey Peach, Shannon Wells Stevenson, Colorado Department of Law, Denver, CO, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Colorado.

Ashley Meskill, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Connecticut.

Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs State of Delaware, State of New Mexico.

Cara A. Hendrickson, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Chicago, IL, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Illinois.

Virginia Anne Williamson, Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Maryland.

Katherine Brady Dirks, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Heidi Parry Stern, Nevada Attorney General's Office, Las Vegas, NV, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Nevada.

Farng-Yi Foo, Anaiis Gonzalez, Office of the Attorney General, Newark, NJ, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of New Jersey.

Anuradha Sawkar, Oregon Department of Justice, Portland, OR, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Oregon.

Leonard Giarrano, IV, RI Department of Attorney General, Providence, RI, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Rhode Island.

Ellen E. Range, State of Washington Attorney General's Office, Olympia, WA, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Washington.

Aaron Bibb, Wisconsin Department of Justice Special Litigation & Appeals, Madison, WI, Rabia Claire Muqaddam, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Wisconsin.

Adam M. Gitlin, Monica Pilar Folch, DOJ-United States Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Defendants.

Anna St. John, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, Washington, DC, for Intervenor National Association of Scholars.

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Sixteen states bring this action against the National Science Foundation ("NSF") and its Acting Director, Brian Stone, challenging NSF's "Statement of U.S. National Science Foundation Priorities" (the "Priority Directive"). Issued on April 18, 2025, the Priority Directive announced, among other things, that NSF's efforts to advance scientific research will not give preference to certain groups at the expense of others. Along with their Complaint, Plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction that would enjoin Defendants from implementing the Priority Directive, including by terminating or interrupting previously awarded grants, and would restore hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for terminated grants awarded to Institutions of Higher Education ("IHEs") in the Plaintiff states. NSF terminated these awards upon determining that they were not aligned with the Priority Directive. After receiving briefing on Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion from the parties and an amicus curiae, the Court held a hearing on the motion on July 9, 2025.¹

Plaintiffs' first two causes of action plead claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Through these causes of action, Plaintiffs ultimately advance two kinds of claims. First, Plaintiffs challenge NSF's already-completed grant terminations and ask the Court to order those grants—and thus the funding for Plaintiffs' IHEs—restored. The Court concludes that it likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this type of retrospective claim because Plaintiffs, in essence, seek monetary relief from the federal government in an amount exceeding $10,000 and the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over that kind of claim. Second, Plaintiffs' causes of action under the APA also assert a claim to vacate the Priority Directive and prospectively enjoin its implementation. While in isolation such a claim would tend to lay comfortably within this Court's jurisdiction under the APA, at this preliminary stage Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of persuasion of showing that splitting their claims with the Court of Federal Claims would be permissible. The Court also concludes that subject matter jurisdiction is likely lacking over Plaintiffs' three nonstatutory review causes of action because alternative procedures exist for the review of those claims and because Plaintiffs have not established that NSF plainly acted contrary to a clear and mandatory statutory prohibition or otherwise disregarded a clear statutory command. Thus, and for reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

I. Background²

A. The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 ("NSF Act"), Pub. L. No. 81-507, 64 Stat. 149 (1950) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1861, et seq.), created NSF. Among other functions, NSF is charged with "initiat[ing] and support[ing] basic scientific research and programs to strengthen scientific research potential and science education programs," and "award[ing] . . . scholarships and graduate fellowships for study and research in the sciences or in engineering." 42 U.S.C. § 1862(a)(1)-(2).

Congress has found that "it is in the national interest to promote the full use of human resources in science and engineering and to insure the full development and use of the scientific and engineering talents and skills of men and women, equally, of all ethnic, racial, and economic backgrounds, including persons with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 1885(a). To that end, Congress declared that "it is the policy of the United States to encourage men and women, equally, of all ethnic, racial, and economic backgrounds, including persons with disabilities, to acquire skills in science, engineering, and mathematics, to have equal opportunity in education, training, and employment in scientific and engineering fields, and thereby to promote scientific and engineering literacy and the full use of the human resources of the Nation in science and engineering." Id. § 1885(b). Congress has also identified "that the highest quality science and engineering over the long-term requires substantial support, from currently available research and educational funds, for increased participation in science and engineering by women, minorities, and persons with disabilities." Id.

NSF is required by statute to use a core strategy of "[d]evelop[ing] intellectual capital, both people and ideas, with particular emphasis on groups and regions that traditionally have not participated fully in science, mathematics, and engineering." Id. § 1862k(b)(1). Among other similar statutory directives and authorizations, see Dkt. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 32-33, 36-41 (collecting examples); Motion at 16-17 (same), NSF must "award grants on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to eligible entities to increase the participation of underrepresented populations in [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ('STEM')] fields." 42 U.S.C. § 1862s-5(d)(1). NSF also must "continue to support" various programs directed at increasing minority participation in STEM. Id. § 1862p-4.

To accomplish Congress's goals, "NSF awards grants to various entities, including Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), to support research activities." Stone Decl. ¶ 5. In determining whether to award a grant, NSF "uses two statutory criteria to ensure that every award has the potential to advance new knowledge (Intellectual Merit) with maximum impact on the Nation and its people (Broader Impacts)." Id. ¶ 6; see 42 U.S.C. § 1862s(b) ("The Foundation shall maintain the intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria, among other specific criteria as appropriate, as the basis for evaluating grant proposals in the merit review process."). Congress has directed NSF to "identify and demonstrate project support" of seven goals when applying the broader impacts review criterion, including "[e]xpanding participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM." 42 U.S.C. § 1862p-14(a), (a)(7).³

NSF's grant review process usually takes six months for technical review and an additional...