The Trump administration is still prohibiting National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff from issuing virtually all grant funding, an NIH official tells Popular Information. The ongoing funding freeze is also reflected in internal correspondence reviewed by Popular Information and was reiterated to staff in a meeting on Monday. The funding freeze at NIH violates two federal court injunctions, two legal experts said.

The funding freeze at NIH puts all of the research the agency funds at risk. As the primary funder of biomedical research in the United States, NIH-funded research includes everything from cancer treatments to heart disease prevention to stroke interventions.

  • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    If judges’ orders can be ignored with no consequence, we’re done as a country.

    Judges have zero recourse to enforce judgements against the executive branch. All previous executives who have obeyed an order given by a judge have obeyed it voluntarily. The only recourse would be for congress to impeach and convict the president, which of course will not happen. It’s tempting to call this an oversight by the Founders, but it seems to me that this is by design. As long as there is not a congress that will convict the president, the courts cannot truly tell the president what to do.

    • KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I mean, I was taught that this was specifically an executive check on judicial power in school 25 something years ago.

      But again that sort of implies that it “would only be used for good” by an executive against an out of control supreme court. It didn’t really account for a fascist just telling the courts to go fuck themselves just because.

    • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I would argue there’s a Constitutional duty for all sworn officers to be willing to impose a judge’s order if it’s lawful/constitutional (if ordered). That’s how warrants and seizure orders work, for example.

      The question I’m afraid to see tested is what if any judge tells an officer to do one thing and the president tells her to do something else?