Updated November 24, 2025

The Executive Orders at issue in this class action litigation resulted in summary and blanket terminations of grant funding for UC researchers, without any individualized determinations or due process. These government actions conflict with our nation's foundational principles, violate key Constitutional rights, and directly impact research work at UC that the federal government had previously determined to be worthy of funding and completion. In furtherance of Farella’s commitment to protecting the rule of law, we are proud to represent the affected UC researchers in this legal proceeding on a pro bono basis. 

The most recent court order (September 22) ordered reinstatement of UC researchers’ grants by an additional three government agencies.

Background

The class action lawsuit, Thakur v. Trump, was filed in June 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of UC faculty and other researchers whose grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were abruptly terminated by the Trump Administration, via Executive Order. The class action asserts that the government’s grant terminations violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the class members’ constitutional rights, including their First Amendment right to free speech and Fifth Amendment right to due process. In September 2025, the action was expanded to include grants that had been terminated by the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Transportation (DOT), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In November 2025, a motion was filed to expand the action to include grants terminated by the Department of Energy (DOE).

Major Case Milestones

• June 4: Plaintiffs file complaint initiating the class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court.
• June 23: District Court Judge Rita F. Lin issued a class-wide preliminary injunction, ordering the government to cease grant terminations under President Trump’s and the agencies’ unlawful directives, and to reinstate previously-terminated research grants from EPA, NSF, and NEH across the UC system. Judge Lin found that plaintiffs and class members were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, and that reinstatement of the funding was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
• August 12: The District Court extended the preliminary injunction to cover indefinite “suspensions” of grants to researchers at UCLA, finding those actions to be essentially terminations by another name.
• August 21: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion to stay implementation of the preliminary injunction pending completion of its appeal of the injunction. As a result, grant funding subject to the preliminary injunction remains available to the UC researchers who are class members, pending further action by the Ninth Circuit on the government’s appeal. 
• August 29: Plaintiffs file (1) second amended complaint, which adds class plaintiffs with affected DOD, DOT, and NIH grants, and (2) motion for preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement of these grants, similar to the June 23 preliminary injunction granted against EPA, NSF, and NEH.
• September 22: The District Court issued a second injunction, ordering the government to cease grant terminations by DOD, DOT, and NIH, and to reinstate grants previously terminated by those agencies.
• November 24: Plaintiffs file (1) motion for leave to file third amended complaint, adding class plaintiffs with affected DOE grants, and (2) motion for preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement of these grants, similar to the prior injunctions granted against EPA, NSF, NEH, DOD, DOT, and NIH
• December 23, 2025: The Ninth Circuit issued an Amended Order, reversing a limited part of what it decided in August 2025 in upholding the District Court’s determination that the Trump administration violated the law in terminating grants to UC researchers. The Ninth Circuit again found that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment in cutting off grants based on the perceived viewpoints of the research. The District Court’s order reinstating these grants to members of the Equity Termination Class remains in effect.

The Ninth Circuit, however, determined that another set of claims under the federal Administrative Procedure Act likely must go to the Court of Federal Claims rather than the federal district court. The Ninth Circuit thus stayed the District Court’s order reinstating grants to the Form Termination Class. At this point, this applies only to grants from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Endowment of the Humanities that are not also covered by the Equity Termination Class.

• December 29, 2025: Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit panel’s conclusion that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• January 30, 2026: The District Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification as to the Department of Energy. For Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction Motion, the District Court stated that there is not enough information in the record to support a finding that the terminations likely violated the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court concurrently issued an order setting a case schedule to proceed directly to cross-motions for summary judgment on the equal production claim after production of the administrative record and discovery.
• February 3, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint.
• February 23, 2026: The Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or reconsideration en banc.

Farella—in conjunction with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Erwin Chemerinsky and Claudia Polsky—is representing the class of UC researchers whose federal grant funding has been unlawfully terminated by the Trump Administration.

Copies of the complaint, key court orders, and legal briefs in the litigation to date can be accessed here.