Court filing

Amicus Brief of Dr. Arati Prabhakar — New York v. Trump (1st Cir.)

Record facts

Court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Filed	2025-07-25

Summary

An amicus curiae brief of Dr. Arati Prabhakar supporting the plaintiffs-appellees and affirmance, dated July 25, 2025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Case Nos. 25-1236 and 25-1413, on appeal from Case No. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM in the District of Rhode Island. The statement of interest describes the amicus as an engineer and scientist who was Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from October 3, 2022 to January 20, 2025 and earlier led two federal research agencies. The brief argues that the Office of Management and Budget memorandum of January 27, 2025 pausing agency grant, loan and other financial assistance programs, and the agency freezes that followed, harm American innovation. It also argues that Congress has authorized stable long-term funding of scientific research. The certificate of compliance states the brief contains 4,714 words.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
for the
First Circuit

Case Nos. 25-1236
and 25-1413
STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE
OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE;
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF HAWAII; STATE OF MAINE;
STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA;
STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF NEW
MEXICO; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT;
(For Continuation of Caption See Inside Cover)
_____________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF RHODE ISLAND,
PROVIDENCE, IN CASE NO. 1:25-CV-00039-JJM,
HONORABLE JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR., U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE DR. ARATI PRABHAKAR IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE

PHILIP S. MAY
GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN
AND STONE LLP
801 17th Street NW, Suite 1050
Washington , DC 20006
(202) 505-5830

JENNIFER H. WU
ERIC ALAN STONE
JOSEPHINE YOUNG
JENNY C. WU
JENNIFER REA DENEAULT
PETER SANDEL
ALEXANDER S. EVELSON
GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN
AND STONE LLP
565 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
New York, New York 10017
(332) 269-0030

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Dr. Arati Prabhakar

(800) 4-APPEAL • (383425)

STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF WISCONSIN, OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, ex rel. ANDREW BESHEAR, in their official
capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in their official capacity as President of the United States;
U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; RUSSELL THURLOW
VOUGHT, in their official capacity as Director of the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SCOTT BESSENT, in
their official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; PATRICIA COLLINS, in their
official capacity as Treasurer of the U.S.; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in their official
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; LINDA MCMAHON, in their official
capacity as Secretary of Education; U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CAMERON HAMILTON, in their official capacity
as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SEAN P. DUFFY, in their
official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR; LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, in their official capacity as Secretary of
Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CHRISTOPHER ALLEN WRIGHT,
in their official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy; U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LEE M. ZELDIN, in their
official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DOUGLAS BURGUM, in their
official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in their official capacity as Secretary
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; PAMELA J. BONDI, in their official capacity as Attorney General;
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; DR. SETHURAMAN
PANCHANATHAN, in their official capacity as Director of the National Science
Foundation; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; BROOKE ROLLINS,
in their official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT; SCOTT TURNER, in their official
capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE; MARCO RUBIO, in their official capacities as Secretary of State
and Acting Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development; US AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PETE HEGSETH, in their official capacity as
Secretary of Defense; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
DOUGLAS COLLINS, in their official capacity as Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; HOWARD LUTNICK, in their official
capacity as Secretary of Commerce; NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION; JANET PETRO, in their official capacity as Acting
Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE;
JENNIFER BASTRESS TAHMASEBI, in their official capacity as Interim Head

of the Corporation for National and Community Service; U.S. SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; LELAND DUDEK, in their official capacity
as Acting Commissioner of United States Social Security Administration; U.S.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; KELLY LOEFFLER, in their official
capacity as Acting Administrator of U.S. Small Business Administration,
Defendants-Appellants.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ ii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 29 ........................ 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 6
I.
The OMB Directive and Funding Freezes Significantly Harm
American Innovation .......................................................................................... 6
A.
The Harm to Federal Agencies and Institutions That
Conduct Scientific Research and Drive Innovation .................................. 6
B.
The Harm to America’s Leadership in Scientific Innovation .................. 12
II.
Congress’s Authorization for Stable Long-Term Federal Funding
of Scientific Research Underpins America’s Leadership in Innovation ........... 15
III.
Stable, Reliable Investment in Scientific Research Is a
Matter of Congressional Policy ........................................................................ 18
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)
Case Materials
Declaration of Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska, New York v. Trump,
No. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS
(D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), Dkt. No. 68-120 ........................................................... 7, 8
Declaration of Jeni Kitchell, New York v. Trump,
No. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025),
Dkt. No. 68-34 ............................................................................................ 4, 9, 12
Declaration of Sally Morton, New York v. Trump,
No. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025),
Dkt. No. 68-21 ...................................................................................................... 8
Declaration of Sarah Norris Hall, New York v. Trump,
No. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025),
Dkt. No. 68-112 .................................................................................................... 8
Statutes
15 U.S.C. § 8519 ...................................................................................................... 20
42 U.S.C. § 242c(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 7
42 U.S.C. § 282(b) ..................................................................................................... 7
42 U.S.C. § 282a ...................................................................................................... 20
42 U.S.C. § 1862s .................................................................................................... 20
42 U.S.C. § 6603(a) ................................................................................................. 20
42 U.S.C. § 19014(a)(1)(A) ..................................................................................... 19
21st Century Cures Act, Pub. L. No. 114-255 § 1001,
130 Stat. 1033 (2016) .......................................................................................... 19
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,
Pub. L. No. 111-358, § 503, 124 Stat. 3982 (2011) ........................................... 20

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)

Page(s)
CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-167,
§ 10301(1), 136 Stat. 1366 (2022) ...................................................................... 19
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024,
Pub. L. No. 118-47, 138 Stat. 460 (2024) .......................................................... 20
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958,
Pub. L. No. 85-568, §§ 102(b)–(c), 103(1), 72 Stat. 426 (1958) .......................... 7
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition
Authorization Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-10, § 101,
131 Stat. 18 (2017) .............................................................................................. 20
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-507,
§ 3(a), 64 Stat. 149 (1950) .................................................................................... 7
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 7 ...................................................................................... 22
Other Authorities
Aatish Bhatia et al., Trump Has Cut Science Funding to Its Lowest
Level in Decades, N.Y. Times: Upshot (May 22, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/22/upshot/nsf-grants-
trump-cuts.html ................................................................................................... 12
Alexandra Witze, 75% of US Scientists Who Answered Nature Poll
Consider Leaving, Nature (Mar. 27, 2025),
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00938-y ...................................... 13
Andrew A. Toole, Does Public Scientific Research Complement Private
Investment in Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical
Industry?, 50 J.L. & Econ. 81, 95 (2007) ........................................................... 17
Andrew A. Toole, The Impact of Public Basic Research on Industrial
Innovation: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry, 41 Res.
Policy 1 (2012) .............................................................................................. 10, 15

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)

Page(s)
Annie Waldman et al., Shattered Science: The Research Lost as Trump
Targets NIH Funding, ProPublica (June 12, 2025),
https://projects.propublica.org/nih-cuts-research-lost-trump/ ............................ 11
Berkeley School of Information, The Stakes Are High: Science &
Technology for Our Future — Dr. Arati Prabhakar (YouTube, June
9, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7ENnHAVKpI ....................... 16
Building the Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, U.S. Nat’l Sci.
Found., https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/ai (last visited July 24, 2025) ................. 15
Catherine Porter & Roger Cohen, Europe Makes a Pitch to Attract
Scientists Shunned by the U.S., N.Y. Times (May 5, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/world/europe/eu-us-scientists-
trump.html ........................................................................................................... 14
Commerce Dems, Roundtable Discussion on Importance of Federal
Investment in Science (YouTube, May 20, 2025),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7rwdTnYSkw ................................... 16, 17
CRISPR: A Biotech Breakthrough, U.S. Nat’l Sci. Found.,
https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/crispr (last visited July 24, 2025) ........................ 16
Danielle Gerhard, US Universities Reduce PhD Admissions in Response
to Federal Funding Cuts, Scientist (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.the-
scientist.com/us-universities-reduce-phd-admissions-in-response-to-
federal-funding-cuts-72734; ............................................................................... 12
Darya Minovi et al., Science and Democracy Under Siege, Union of
Concerned Scientists (July 21, 2025),
https://www.ucs.org/resources/science-and-democracy-under-siege................. 11
Ekaterina Galkina Cleary et al., Comparison of Research Spending on
New Drug Approvals by the National Institutes of Health vs the
Pharmaceutical Industry, 2010-2019, JAMA Health F. (Apr. 28,
2023), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-
forum/fullarticle/2804378 ..................................................................................... 9

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)

Page(s)
ICYMI: President Trump Outlines OSTP’s Goals and Priorities, White
House (Mar. 27, 2025),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/03/icymi-president-
trump-outlines-ostps-goals-and-priorities/ ......................................................... 14
Jane Smith-Rogers, The Damage to Federal Medical Research Is
Already Done, Wired (Jan. 31, 2025),
https://www.wired.com/story/life-saving-research-risks-being-
destroyed-by-the-federal-funding-freeze/ ........................................................... 10
Katherine Knott, Colleges Restrict Graduate Student Admissions After
NIH Proposes Rate Cut, Inside Higher Ed (Feb. 25, 2025),
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/science-
research-policy/2025/02/25/facing-nih-cuts-colleges-restrict-grad-
student ................................................................................................................. 12
Letter from Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., Loc. 3403, AFL-CIO, to Rep.
Zoe Lofgren (July 21, 2025), https://democrats-
science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/AFGE_Local_3403_NSF_Letter_
to_RM_Lofgren_REDACTED_Redacted.pdf ................................................... 10
Megan Molteni & J. Emory Parker, Despite Resumption of NIH Grant
Reviews, Research Funding Gap Grew, STAT News, (June 27,
2025) https://www.statnews.com/2025/06/27/despite-resumption-of-
nih-grant-reviews-research-funding-gap-grew/ .................................................. 11
MRI: Imagine Living Tissue, U.S. Nat’l Sci. Found.,
https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/mri (last visited July 24, 2025) ............................ 15
NIH Grant Terminations in 2025, Grant Watch, https://grant-
watch.us/nih-data.html (last visited July 12, 2025) .................................. 5, 10, 11
Nina Lakhani, Scientists Warn US Will Lose a Generation of Talent
Because of Trump Cuts, Guardian (July 3, 2025),
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/03/national-science-
foundation-trump-cuts ........................................................................................ 13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)

Page(s)
Academics Disenchanted with America, Wall St. J. (June 28, 2025),
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/europe-is-recruiting-academics-
disenchanted-with-america-c4bae422 ................................................................ 13
NSF Impacts, U.S. Nat’l Sci. Found., https://www.nsf.gov/impacts (last
visited July 24, 2025) .......................................................................................... 15
Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, OMB
Memorandum M-25-13, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan,
and Other Financial Assistance Programs (Jan. 27, 2025),
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25506186/m-25-13-
temporary-pause-to-review-agency-grant-loan-and-other-financial-
assistance-programs.pdf .................................................................................... 3, 4
One Year Later: The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act:
Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Com., Sci., & Transp., S. Hrg. 115-
654, at 2 (Jan. 30, 2018) ...................................................................................... 21
OSTP Director Arati Prabhakar on a Pivotal Moment: Science and
Technology for America’s Future, White House (Jan. 13, 2025),
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/news-
updates/2025/01/13/ostp-director-arati-prabhakar-on-a-pivotal-
moment-science-and-technology-for-americas-future/ ...............................passim
Patrick Boyle, What’s at Stake When Clinical Trials Research Gets Cut,
AAMC (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.aamc.org/news/whats-stake-
when-clinical-trials-research-gets-cut ................................................................. 11
President Richard Nixon, Message from the President of the United
States Relative to Reorganization Plans Nos. 3 and 4 of 1970, H.R.
Doc. 91-366 (1970) ............................................................................................... 7
Pursuing the Golden Age of Innovation: Strategic Priorities in
Biotechnology, Joint Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Rsch. &
Techn. & H. Subcomm. on Energy, 119th Cong. (June 5, 2025),
https://science.house.gov/2025/6/opening-statement-of-research-
and-technology-subcommittee-chairman-jay-obernolte-at ................................ 21

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)

Page(s)
Queen’s Special U.S. Doctoral Recruitment Initiative, Queen’s Univ.,
https://www.queensu.ca/grad-postdoc/graduate-studies/international-
students/queens-special-us-doctoral-recruitment-initiative (last
visited July 24, 2025) .......................................................................................... 14
Rachel Nuwer, U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists
of Their Future, Sci. Am. (July 3, 2025),
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-trumps-federal-
funding-cuts-are-hurting-early-career-researchers-and/ ................................. 5, 13
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, 35 C.F.R. 15,627 (1970) .................................. 7
Roll Call 592 | Bill Number: H. R. 34, U.S. House of Representatives:
Clerk, https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2016592 (last visited July 24,
2025) ................................................................................................................... 19
Roll Call Vote 114th Congress - 2nd Session, U.S. Senate,
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1142/vot
e_114_2_00157.htm (last visited July 24, 2025) ................................................ 19
Semiconductors: Powering the Modern World, U.S. Nat’l Sci. Found.,
https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/semiconductors (last visited July 24,
2025) ................................................................................................................... 15
The State of U.S. Science and Technology: Ensuring U.S. Global
Leadership: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Sci., Space, & Tech.,
119th Cong. (Feb. 5, 2025) ........................................................................... 20, 21
United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, S. 1260, 117th
Cong. § 3 (2021) ................................................................................................. 19

STATEMENT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 291
Dr. Arati Prabhakar is an American engineer and scientist who has been a
public official and businessperson. From October 3, 2022 to January 20, 2025, she
served as the Science and Technology Advisor to the President and the Director of
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which under President
Biden was elevated to a Cabinet-level position. From 1993 to 1997, Dr. Prabhakar
served as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(“NIST”). Dr. Prabhakar served as the Director of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (“DARPA”) from 2012 to 2017. In addition, Dr. Prabhakar
worked in the private sector as a company executive and a venture capitalist from
1997 to 2011.
These roles have given her the opportunity to contribute to many different
facets of American innovation, from funding scientific research to commercializing
new technologies and building companies. She led the federal funding of scientific
research that enabled new electronics for both military and commercial purposes,
and that enabled new diagnostic instrumentation that has accelerated medicine. As

1 No party or party’s counsel has authored this brief, in whole or in part, or
contributed financial support intended to fund the preparation or submission of this
brief. No person or organization contributed financial support intended to fund the
preparation or submission of this brief besides amicus curiae, Dr. Arati Prabhakar,
or her counsel.

well, she has hands-on private sector experience working with technologists and
entrepreneurs who were educated on federal research funds to use research results
from federally funded projects to develop new products and companies. She
therefore has an interest in seeing the continuation of federal funding for scientific
research, which makes American technological advancement possible and which is
now in question.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The government has a congressionally-directed responsibility to invest in
research and development that supports public missions like national security, the
health of Americans, and the nation’s competitiveness on the global stage.2 The
government agencies charged with ensuring American scientific leadership and the
private sector companies that build on foundational research to bring innovations
like anticancer drugs and semiconductors to market and achieve that leadership
depend on this federal funding to achieve their missions.3

But just one week after President Trump’s inauguration, the Office of
Management and Budget issued a memorandum (“OMB Directive”) despite
mandates to federal agencies to fund this critical and important research.4
Specifically, that memorandum directed all federal agencies to “temporarily pause”
billions of dollars in federal funding pending a review of that funding’s alignment

2 See OSTP Director Arati Prabhakar on a Pivotal Moment: Science and
Technology for America’s Future, White House (Jan. 13, 2025),
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/news-updates/2025/01/13/ostp-director-
arati-prabhakar-on-a-pivotal-moment-science-and-technology-for-americas-future/
(“Pivotal Moment”).
3 Id.
4 Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, OMB Memorandum M-25-
13, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance
Programs (Jan. 27, 2025), https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25506186/m-
25-13-temporary-pause-to-review-agency-grant-loan-and-other-financial-
assistance-programs.pdf.

with the Administration’s policy preferences.5 Those agencies subsequently
complied, indefinitely suspending all payments on a sweeping range of
government programs, including programs widely regarded as the crown jewels of
American leadership in the sciences.6 If allowed to go into effect, the OMB
Directive and subsequent agency freezes will have staggering impacts on the
nation’s capacity for innovation—both immediately and in the long term.
Congress has directed multiple agencies to fund scientific research grants
that enable innovation for the health, security, and prosperity of Americans.7
Congress’s appropriation of monies for long-term scientific research recognizes
that the development of innovative technologies is not always linear or predictable,
and it requires long-term public investment, as was the case with artificial
intelligence, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, communications, and computing.8
Further, the OMB Directive is just one of several ways in which the
Administration has cut funding or support for the sciences. As of June 2025, Grant
Watch identified “more than 2,482 terminated NIH grants worth $8.7 billion and

5 Id.
6 See, e.g., Declaration of Jeni Kitchell, Ex. A, New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-
00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), Dkt. No. 68-34 (NSF pausing “all
payments under active awards” to comply with the OMB Directive).
7 See Pivotal Moment.
8 See id.

1,669 terminated National Science Foundation grants worth $1.5 billion.”9 These
include cancer research grants (465 grants, totaling $1,087,114,107); HIV-related
grants (349 grants, totaling $1,950,341,056); Alzheimer’s disease grants (195
grants, totaling $410,049,134); and vaccine-related grants (173 grants, totaling
$1,260,441,329).10
Beyond the institutions directly affected by the cuts in the short-term, these
collective cuts—together with the OMB Directive’s funding freeze—will
significantly harm American citizens in the long-term due to the loss of American
capacity to develop cutting-edge technology, American job opportunities, and
future American prosperity and health. The cuts also underscore the lingering
threat that, without this Court’s protection, another freeze could categorically halt
research funding.

9 Rachel Nuwer, U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists of Their
Future, Sci. Am. (July 3, 2025), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-
trumps-federal-funding-cuts-are-hurting-early-career-researchers-and/ (“Budget
Cuts”).
10 See NIH Grant Terminations in 2025, Grant Watch, https://grant-watch.us/nih-
data.html (last visited July 12, 2025).

ARGUMENT
I.
The OMB Directive and Funding Freezes Significantly Harm
American Innovation
The OMB Directive and funding freezes have already had, and will continue
to have, a devastating effect on the efforts of the agencies that administer
Congressional funding and the researchers who leverage that funding to support
the nation’s health, security, and economy. Americans will feel the effects of these
harms for years to come: the OMB Directive and freezes have created lasting
damage to America’s status as a leader in scientific innovation, resulting in a
weakened pipeline of scientists and engineers that will deprive Americans of future
scientific advancements. They ignore the benefits of stable, long-term research
funding and threaten to deprive the nation of future fruits of today’s pursuits.
Additional efforts to cut billions of dollars in congressionally authorized scientific
research funding will only further amplify the harms imposed by the OMB
Directive and subsequent freezes.
A.
The Harm to Federal Agencies and Institutions That Conduct
Scientific Research and Drive Innovation
The OMB Directive threatens federal agencies that power American
innovation, including the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), the National
Science Foundation (“NSF”), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(“CDC”), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”). Congress created

these agencies to work on fundamental and foundational research that spurs the
development of products, services, and companies that in turn allow America to
lead economically, to compete globally, and to create American jobs;11 lead to new
advances in life-saving medical treatments;12 produce critical safety information
such as weather forecasts;13 and secure America’s defense with military technology
and capabilities.14 In addition, freezing funds disbursed by these agencies
threatens innovation at public and private institutions that rely on federal funding
to drive “advances in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, engineering

11 See, e.g., National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-568, §§
102(b)–(c), 103(1), 72 Stat. 426, 426–27 (1958) (establishing NASA to conduct
“research into, and the solution of, problems of flight within and outside the earth’s
atmosphere”).
12 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 282(b) (authorizing NIH to assemble “information to better
evaluate scientific opportunity, public health burdens, and progress in reducing
health disparities”); 42 U.S.C. § 242c(b)(1) (authorizing CDC to “improve public
health domestically and globally”).
13 See, e.g., Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, 35 C.F.R. 15,627 (1970)
(establishing NOAA); President Richard Nixon, Message from the President of the
United States Relative to Reorganization Plans Nos. 3 and 4 of 1970, H.R. Doc.
91-366, at 6 (1970) (noting establishment of NOAA “for better protection of life
and property from natural hazards”).
14 See, e.g., National Science Foundation Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-507, § 3(a),
64 Stat. 149, 149–50 (1950) (authorizing NSF to provide grants for, “initiate and
support specific scientific research activities in connection with matters relating to
the national defense”).

innovations, biological science and nanotechnology,” as well as “support early-
stage research that often leads to major scientific breakthroughs.”15
These harms have already begun to materialize in the instant case. For
example, the University of California received $3.84 billion in federal research
awards in fiscal year 2023 including from NSF and NIH;16 the University of
Washington received over 3,500 active federal direct and passthrough awards, with
an “economic impact from all forms of sponsored research activities exceeds $2.6
billion, supporting and sustaining 10,641 statewide jobs and generating more than
$93 million in Washington state and local tax revenue”;17 and the University of
Wisconsin-Madison received $129.7 million in fiscal year 2023 from NSF that
“supports basic and applied research across all scientific and engineering
disciplines.”18 The OMB Directive puts this funding in jeopardy. Without the

15 See Declaration of Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska at 5, New York v. Trump, No.
1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), Dkt. No. 68-120.
16 Suppl. App. 57; see also Declaration of Sally Morton at 2, New York v. Trump,
No. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), Dkt. No. 68-21 (noting that in
fiscal year 2023, Arizona State University “expended $510 million received from
federal agencies,” including NASA and NSF, “to conduct research work under
approved grant agreements”).
17 Declaration of Sarah Norris Hall at 2, New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00039-
JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), Dkt. No. 68-112.
18 Declaration of Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska at 2, 5, New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-
cv-00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), Dkt. No. 68-120.

preliminary injunction currently in place to ward off uncertainty around the future
of such funding, these and other similarly situated universities would have to fear
that funding for their projects—and therefore the projects themselves—could grind
to a halt at a moment’s notice. Indeed, the OMB Directive and freezes “could have
an existential effect on higher education in California and across the country” and
prevent institutions that rely on federal funding from carrying out “critical
missions, including research and development that supports critical government
interests, such as health and safety and national security.”19
The loss and abandonment of existing experiments and the chilling of future
research will lead to a slowdown in innovation. Losing out on these research
advances will also result in significant lost economic activity; past experience has
proven that even research without obvious commercial application today can have
a powerful effect in the future. For example, NIH-funded research is frequently
the starting point for new drugs. In fact, NIH funding contributed to research for
over 99 percent of the 356 new drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration between 2010 and 2019.20 But it takes on average between 17 and

19 Declaration of Jeni Kitchell at 4–5, New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-
PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), Dkt. No. 68-34.
20 Ekaterina Galkina Cleary et al., Comparison of Research Spending on New Drug
Approvals by the National Institutes of Health vs the Pharmaceutical Industry,

24 years between the original investment and the first application to the FDA for
approval of a new drug before the downstream effects on nationwide health and
economic prosperity start showing.21 Thus, unilateral funding freezes affecting
NIH research today will result in the loss of new-disease treatments years and even
decades into the future.
These harms are made all the more likely by the Administration’s broader
cuts to investment in scientific research. Separate reductions at NIH have caused a
widespread halt in biomedical research across the U.S., with labs unable to access
existing grant money or apply for new awards.22 Peer-review panels are
suspended, experiments are paused midstream, and many research teams have been
forced to furlough or lay off staff, jeopardizing years of work.23 The terminations

2010-2019, JAMA Health F. (Apr. 28, 2023),
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2804378.
21 See Andrew A. Toole, The Impact of Public Basic Research on Industrial
Innovation: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry, 41 Res. Policy 1, 9 (2012)
(“Impact of Public Basic Research”).
22 See NIH Grant Terminations in 2025, Grant Watch, https://grant-watch.us/nih-
data.html (last visited July 12, 2025).
23 See Jane Smith-Rogers, The Damage to Federal Medical Research Is Already
Done, Wired (Jan. 31, 2025), https://www.wired.com/story/life-saving-research-
risks-being-destroyed-by-the-federal-funding-freeze/; see also Letter from Am.
Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., Loc. 3403, AFL-CIO, to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (July 21, 2025),
https://democrats-
science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/AFGE_Local_3403_NSF_Letter_to_RM_Lofgr
en_REDACTED_Redacted.pdf.

disrupted clinical trials, emptied freezer stocks of biospecimens, and left scientists
scrambling for alternative funding, forcing some to scrap projects or abandon them
entirely.24 More broadly, about 2,000 grants in the vaccine-related, HIV-related,
cancer, and Alzheimer’s research fields amounting to about $2 billion in NIH
funding have been targeted for termination.25 And the resulting funding deficit
relative to past years has grown—from $2.3 billion at the end of April to at least
$4.7 billion by mid-June—and will continue to grow.26 Compared to average
funding levels during the same months of the last nine years, this reflects a 29
percent drop in average funding levels.27

24 See Annie Waldman et al., Shattered Science: The Research Lost as Trump
Targets NIH Funding, ProPublica (June 12, 2025),
https://projects.propublica.org/nih-cuts-research-lost-trump/; Patrick Boyle, What’s
at Stake When Clinical Trials Research Gets Cut, AAMC (Apr. 24, 2025),
https://www.aamc.org/news/whats-stake-when-clinical-trials-research-gets-cut;
Darya Minovi et al., Science and Democracy Under Siege, Union of Concerned
Scientists (July 21, 2025), https://www.ucs.org/resources/science-and-democracy-
under-siege.
25 See NIH Grant Terminations in 2025, Grant Watch, https://grant-watch.us/nih-
data.html (last visited July 12, 2025).
26 See Megan Molteni & J. Emory Parker, Despite Resumption of NIH Grant
Reviews, Research Funding Gap Grew, STAT News, (June 27, 2025)
https://www.statnews.com/2025/06/27/despite-resumption-of-nih-grant-reviews-
research-funding-gap-grew/.
27 Id.

B.
The Harm to America’s Leadership in Scientific Innovation
The consequences of the OMB Directive and other cuts are already
emerging in ways that will have ripple effects for many years. For example, the
OMB Directive and other freezes have profoundly impacted STEM education
research grants that educate America’s workforce to conduct research and
development, such as the grants funding the McNair Scholars Program at
California State University, Dominguez Hills (“CSUDH”).28 Such education-
focused grants are nearly eliminated, cut by 80 percent compared to 2024, across
all administrative actions.29 This will result in a weakened U.S. pipeline of
scientists and engineers in every field critical to national security, industrial
innovation, and health.
In the wake of the OMB Directive, other funding cuts, and the resulting
uncertainty, several universities announced reductions in graduate student

28 See Declaration of Jeni Kitchell at 7, New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00039-
JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), Dkt. No. 68-34 (“The McNair Scholars at
CSUDH . . . are students who are first-generation, low-income students interested
in research-based education through the graduate level. . . . These students go on
to highly productive careers that support the engine of the economy. . . . The
university relies completely on grant funding to support this program.”).
29 Aatish Bhatia et al., Trump Has Cut Science Funding to Its Lowest Level in
Decades, N.Y. Times: Upshot (May 22, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/22/upshot/nsf-grants-trump-
cuts.html.

admissions into the sciences.30 The inevitable “brain drain” and resulting
generational gap in American scientists and engineers will result in a loss of
pipeline talent for American industry and a significant slowdown in U.S.
innovation over the coming decade or more.31 This deprives U.S. institutions of
scientific and technical talent, and hence deprives the American people of the
benefits of their future work.32 According to a poll by Nature, a leading scientific
journal chronicling developments across multiple disciplines, 75% of responding
scientists said they considered leaving the United States, and many of them were

30 See, e.g., Danielle Gerhard, US Universities Reduce PhD Admissions in
Response to Federal Funding Cuts, Scientist (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.the-
scientist.com/us-universities-reduce-phd-admissions-in-response-to-federal-
funding-cuts-72734; Katherine Knott, Colleges Restrict Graduate Student
Admissions After NIH Proposes Rate Cut, Inside Higher Ed (Feb. 25, 2025),
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/science-research-
policy/2025/02/25/facing-nih-cuts-colleges-restrict-grad-student.
31 See, e.g., Nina Lakhani, Scientists Warn US Will Lose a Generation of Talent
Because of Trump Cuts, Guardian (July 3, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2025/jul/03/national-science-foundation-trump-cuts (“A generation of
scientific talent is at the brink of being lost to overseas competitors by the Trump
administration’s dismantling of the National Science Foundation (NSF), with
unprecedented political interference at the agency jeopardizing the future of US
industries and economic growth . . . .”).
32 See Budget Cuts.

already looking for jobs in Europe and Canada.33 And Europe and Canada have
launched programs to attract impacted American researchers.34
These consequences endanger longstanding bipartisan priorities, including
those identified by the current Administration. The Trump Administration has
declared it a goal “to blaze a trail to the next frontiers of science[,] . . . cement
America’s global technological leadership and usher in the Golden Age of
American Innovation . . . to make America greater than ever before.”35 These
goals are being undermined, not advanced, by the continuation of the OMB
Directive and other cuts.

33 Alexandra Witze, 75% of US Scientists Who Answered Nature Poll Consider
Leaving, Nature (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-
00938-y.
34 See, e.g., Noemie Bisserbe & Nidhi Subbaraman, Europe Is Recruiting
Academics Disenchanted with America, Wall St. J. (June 28, 2025),
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/europe-is-recruiting-academics-disenchanted-
with-america-c4bae422; Catherine Porter & Roger Cohen, Europe Makes a Pitch
to Attract Scientists Shunned by the U.S., N.Y. Times (May 5, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/world/europe/eu-us-scientists-trump.html;
Queen’s Special U.S. Doctoral Recruitment Initiative, Queen’s Univ.,
https://www.queensu.ca/grad-postdoc/graduate-studies/international-
students/queens-special-us-doctoral-recruitment-initiative (last visited July 24,
2025).
35 ICYMI: President Trump Outlines OSTP’s Goals and Priorities, White House
(Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/03/icymi-president-
trump-outlines-ostps-goals-and-priorities/.

II.
Congress’s Authorization for Stable Long-Term Federal Funding of
Scientific Research Underpins America’s Leadership in Innovation
Stable, long-term funding is particularly important for research that lays the
foundation for transformative advances. Such research often spans multiple
sectors and disciplines, years ahead of any product, and goes on to support
investments and discoveries across the American economy.36 Examples of NSF-
funded innovations that took years or decades to mature include:37
MRIs. “MRI technology is built upon decades of NSF-funded research
in nuclear magnetic resonance, electromagnetics, biophysics,
biochemistry and computer engineering that began in the 1950s.” MRI:
Imagine
Living
Tissue,
U.S.
Nat’l
Sci.
Found.,
https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/mri (last visited July 24, 2025).
Artificial Intelligence. “Since the 1960s, [NSF] has funded research
breakthroughs in artificial intelligence that built the foundation for
technologies Americans use every day, such as digital assistants like
Alexa and Siri, Face ID, image generators and chatbots like ChatGPT.”
Building the Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, U.S. Nat’l Sci.
Found., https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/ai (last visited July 24, 2025).
Semiconductors. In the 1950s, NSF began supporting research that
“lay[] the foundation for a semiconductor manufacturing revolution,”
and it continued funding researchers for decades, leading to the
invention of, among other things “the 3D fin field-effect transistor
(FinFET), now a key component in advanced microchips.”
Semiconductors: Powering the Modern World, U.S. Nat’l Sci. Found.,

36 See Pivotal Moment (“Federally funded research is what all these industries draw
on for their product development.”); see also generally Toole, Impact of Public
Basic Research.
37 See NSF Impacts, U.S. Nat’l Sci. Found., https://www.nsf.gov/impacts (last
visited July 24, 2025).

https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/semiconductors (last visited July 24,
2025).
CRISPR and Gene Editing. Although CRISPR was first discovered
in 1987, CRISPR only “took the scientific world by storm” over two
decades later, when “a research team that included a recipient of the
[NSF]’s prestigious Alan T. Waterman Award” discovered how to
leverage the technology to create one of “the world’s most powerful
gene-editing tools.” CRISPR: A Biotech Breakthrough, U.S. Nat’l Sci.
Found., https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/crispr (last visited July 24, 2025).
This work in turn supports foundational, bipartisan goals such as national
security, economic prosperity, and medical progress.
The loss of continued, stable support for American sciences would further be
devastating to our global economic competitiveness. The innovation and
dynamism of American businesses rely on government-supported foundational
research to create cutting-edge technologies like the ones identified above. But
businesses do not fund a sufficient base of fundamental research on their own due
to the scale, uncertain returns, and extended timelines involved.38 Instead, multi-
pronged, system-level government efforts that involve dedicated research funding
are necessary to tackle the most pressing problems our nation faces, such as
maintaining economic competitiveness and national security during tremendous

38 Commerce Dems, Roundtable Discussion on Importance of Federal Investment
in Science, at 12:54–13:15 (YouTube, May 20, 2025),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7rwdTnYSkw.

geopolitical change, and improving the health of Americans.39 Neither
philanthropy nor the private sector is likely to take up that mantle.40 Even if
entities in the private sector were financially capable of shouldering the cost of
foundational scientific research, they lack the broad expertise in public missions,
coordinated vision, and economies of scale to realize it on their own.
Any response that federal money preempts private investment—so as to fill
the gap left following a government retreat from the sector—is incorrect. Such an
argument misunderstands the complementarity between private and public
investment that makes American science and innovation work. In fact, federal
funding for scientific research expands the opportunity for private sector
investment41 because innovative American technologies and companies build on

39 See Pivotal Moment (“doing the research with clinical trials to make it possible
to prevent cervical cancers with tests simple enough to do at home” and
“developing and validating new ways to make it easier and easier to detect cancer
early, through blood or even saliva tests,” as part of coordinated federal initiative to
combat cancer); Berkeley School of Information, The Stakes Are High: Science &
Technology for Our Future — Dr. Arati Prabhakar, at 19:55–22:22 (YouTube, June
9, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7ENnHAVKpI (same).
40 Commerce Dems, Roundtable Discussion on Importance of Federal Investment
in Science, at 14:10–14:17 (YouTube, May 20, 2025),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7rwdTnYSkw.
41 See, e.g., Andrew A. Toole, Does Public Scientific Research Complement Private
Investment in Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry?, 50 J.L.
& Econ. 81, 95 (2007) (finding “public basic research is complementary to private
pharmaceutical R&D investment and thereby stimulates additional private
investment”).

knowledge and talent pipelines first developed using congressionally-appropriated
funding.42
Lastly, even if funding were to resume in full and without restriction
tomorrow, the lingering uncertainty created by the prospect of another freeze
would continue to chill investment, risking the consequences laid out above.
III.
Stable, Reliable Investment in Scientific Research Is a Matter of
Congressional Policy
The OMB Directive and freezes cut directly against decades of broadly
shared, bipartisan congressional commitments to government funding of, and
partnership with, science and technology.
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022—which passed both houses of
Congress with bipartisan support—built on the earlier and similarly bipartisan
United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 (“USICA”), which was
proposed by Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and Republican Senator Todd
Young. Like the later CHIPS and Science Act, the proposed USICA stated
Congress’s recognition that “[f]ederal agencies have carried out vital work
supporting basic and applied research to create knowledge that is a key driver of

42 See Pivotal Moment (emphasizing that federal R&D “started so many of our
innovative industries: aerospace, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors,
communications and computing, and now AI and renewable energy, with more to
come”).

the economy of the United States and a critical component of national security,”
“increasing research and technology transfer investments . . . will enhance the
competitive advantage and leadership of the United States in the global economy,”
and “authorization and funding for investments in research, education, technology
transfer, intellectual property, manufacturing, and other core strengths of the
United States innovation ecosystem, including at the National Science Foundation
and the Department of Energy, should be done on a bipartisan basis.” S. 1260,
117th Cong. § 3 (2021); see also CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-
167, § 10301(1), 136 Stat. 1366, 1506 (2022).
In the CHIPS and Science Act, Congress also reaffirmed its commitment to
“maintaining the Nation’s scientific and economic leadership” by recognizing that
“investments into State research” by NSF’s Established Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research “should be sustained.” 42 U.S.C. § 19014(a)(1)(A).
One of the clearest testaments to Congress’s unified stance on the
importance of funding scientific research is the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016,
which passed nearly unanimously in both the House (392-26)43 and Senate (94-

43 Roll Call 592 | Bill Number: H. R. 34, U.S. House of Representatives: Clerk,
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2016592 (last visited July 24, 2025).

5).44 The 21st Century Cures Act authorized for appropriation a decade’s worth of
funding for NIH to, among other things, pursue “research that has the potential to
transform the scientific field” and “has inherently higher risk,” the exact sort of
research that could pay dividends by improving the nation’s health, economic
superiority, and security. See 21st Century Cures Act, Pub. L. No. 114-255 § 1001,
130 Stat. 1033, 1039–41 (2016).
This commitment is nothing new. Congress has repeatedly supported robust,
long-term funding of scientific research,45 reauthorized and made appropriations to
the agencies responsible for the administration of such funding,46 and spoken about
the importance of continuing such funding to benefit the American people:

44 Roll Call Vote 114th Congress - 2nd Session, U.S. Senate,
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1142/vote_114_2_0015
7.htm (last visited July 24, 2025).
45 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1862s (2017) (American Innovation and Competitiveness
Act, introduced by Republican Senator Cory Gardner and Democratic Senator
Gary Peters, stating “[i]t is the sense of Congress that . . . sustained, predictable
Federal funding of basic research is essential to United States leadership in science
and technology”); see also 42 U.S.C. § 6603(a) (America COMPETES Act,
enacted in 2007, stating Congress’s intent that “each Federal research agency
should strive to support and promote innovation in the United States through high-
risk, high-reward basic research projects”).
46 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 282a (authorizing funds for appropriation to NIH);
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-358, § 503,
124 Stat. 3982, 4005 (2011) (authorizing funds for appropriation to NSF); Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-47, 138 Stat. 460, 653–56
(2024) (appropriating funds to CDC); 15 U.S.C. § 8519 (authorizing funds for
appropriation to the Office of Oceanic Atmospheric Research within NOAA);

Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), Chairman, House Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology: “Federally funded research is the foundation on
which major technological innovations are built . . . . It is critical for
maintaining a healthy baseline over generations by supporting fundamental
basic research, infrastructure, and facilities; creating new research disciplines;
and training generations of scientists and engineers. . . . America’s economic
strength, national security, and quality of life all fundamentally depend on
ongoing scientific progress and the strength of our S&T enterprise. While the
United States continues to lead in the innovation race, we face fierce global
competition.” The State of U.S. Science and Technology: Ensuring U.S.
Global Leadership: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Sci., Space, & Tech.,
119th Cong. (Feb. 5, 2025)47;
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Ranking Member, House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology: “For many decades there has been
bipartisan consensus that the federal role in basic research is essential. That
we cannot pull back, and that basic research funding needs to continue if we
are [to] take the lead in science in the world.” Id.48;
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Chairman, House Subcommittee on
Research and Technology: “[W]e must invest in the fundamental research
and development (R&D) that will drive the innovations of tomorrow. . . .
Federal investments can be a force multiplier that reinvigorates our
biotechnology research ecosystem and guarantees U.S. leadership for decades
to come.” Pursuing the Golden Age of Innovation: Strategic Priorities in

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of
2017, Pub. L. No. 115-10, § 101, 131 Stat. 18, 20–21 (2017) (authorizing funds for
appropriation to NASA).
47 https://science.house.gov/2025/2/opening-statement-of-chairman-brian-babin-at-
full-committee-hearing-the-state-of-u-s-science-and-technology-ensuring-u-s-
global-leadership
48 https://democrats-
science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2.5.25%20RM%20Lofgren%20OS%20State%2
0of%20Science.pdf

Biotechnology, Joint Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Rsch. & Techn. &
H. Subcomm. on Energy, 119th Cong. (June 5, 2025)49;
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO): “Unless we dedicate more support to our
Nation’s research and development enterprise, we will lose out to competitors
like China, who are quickly working to displace the United States as the
world’s greatest innovator.” One Year Later: The American Innovation and
Competitiveness Act: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Com., Sci., & Transp.,
S. Hrg. 115-654, at 2 (Jan. 30, 2018);
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL): “The public interest, public health and national
security are going to depend on advancements in science. . . . The
advancement of science has depended on a healthy investment in research by
the Federal Government.” Id. at 3.
These statements, together with Congress’s repeated dedication to securing long-
term funding for scientific research, underscore Congress’s vital role in legislating
the nation’s long-term scientific research priorities. See U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl.
7. For more than 80 years, American scientific research has flourished and served
the nation thanks to federal funding and the stability and predictability created by
the rule of law. The Court should do everything in its power to protect that vital
relationship.
CONCLUSION
Amicus curiae urges this Court to affirm the District Court’s judgment.

49 https://science.house.gov/2025/6/opening-statement-of-research-and-technology-
subcommittee-chairman-jay-obernolte-at

Dated: July 25, 2025
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jennifer H. Wu
Jennifer H. Wu
Eric Alan Stone
Josephine Young
Jenny C. Wu
Jennifer Rea Deneault
Peter Sandel
Alexander S. Evelson
GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN
& STONE LLP
565 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
New York, New York 10017
(332) 269-0030
jennifer.wu@groombridgewu.com
eric.stone@groombridgewu.com
josephine.young@groombridgewu.com
jenny.wu@groombridgewu.com
jenna.deneault@groombridgewu.com
peter.sandel@groombridgewu.com
alexander.evelson@groombridgewu.com

Philip S. May
GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN
& STONE LLP
801 17th Street NW, Suite 1050
Washington , DC 20006
(202) 505-5830
philip.may@groombridgewu.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Dr. Arati Prabhakar

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief (1) complies with the type-volume limitation of
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(5) and 32(a)(7)(B) because, excluding
the parts of the document exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(f),
it contains 4,714 words; and (2) complies with the typeface requirements of
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6). As permitted by Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 32(g)(1), in preparing this certificate, the undersigned has
relied upon the word-count feature of the word-processing system used to prepare
this document.

Dated: July 25, 2025
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jennifer H. Wu
Jennifer H. Wu

Attorney for Amicus Curiae
Dr. Arati Prabhakar

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 25, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. For all participants that are
registered CM/ECF users, service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF
system. The below non-CM/ECF participants will be served by their preferred
method, U.S. Mail.
Anne Armstrong
99 Hudson Pond Road
West Greenwich, RI 02817

/s/ Jennifer H. Wu
Jennifer H. Wu
Derrill J. Fussell
929 E College Way
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Email: squareshooter@earthlink.net

Cody R. Hart
901 Metcalf Street, Apt. 71
Sedro-Wolley, WA 98284
Email: info@codyhart.org

Arthur West
NE #1497
120 State Avenue
Olympia, WA 98501

Rubin Young
14060 SW 258th Street
Homestead, FL 33032

File and source

File: collins_sba_rrf__docket-69720767__doc-108332820__id-451010970__document.pdf
Size: 435,881 bytes
SHA-256: 5642b90e102f5b93ca3943859e716ad8ba0f5d8f60d55a35a006563e11b4bc70
Our copy: collins_sba_rrf__docket-69720767__doc-108332820__id-451010970__document.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com

Amicus Brief of Dr. Arati Prabhakar — New York v. Trump (1st Cir.)

Record facts

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records