The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research — began an ideological purge of its grants in February. Without warning, hundreds of research projects were abruptly cancelled.

The NIH targeted research that was purportedly connected to “gender identity” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), or other topics such as vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 based on sweeping, unsubstantiated, and politically-driven claims that the research was not scientific and would not benefit Americans. The NIH also systematically purged training grants designed to facilitate the entry of historically underrepresented groups into the biomedical field as mandated by Congress. This jeopardized opportunities for the best and the brightest of the next generation of scientists and particularly harmed racial and ethnic minorities, women, people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and those from rural communities. Along with Protect Democracy and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the ACLU sued.

In June, the court found that this purge violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), noting that, without proper reasoning, the NIH unlawfully targeted research involving “disfavored” topics and populations along with training grants designed to enhance diversity in the biomedical field, and failed to define terms such as “DEI." District Judge William G. Young said that these terminations were not only illegal, but also represent “racial discrimination, and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community,” he said. “I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years … and I have never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable.”

The court will next address the hundreds of submitted applications NIH left in limbo. We are working to ensure those proposals are fairly reviewed and that NIH can’t bury the next generation of life-saving research.

Kelly Blanchard

For now, Kelly Blanchard, president of Ibis Reproductive Health, one of our clients in this case, reflects on why the NIH grant that was terminated is critical to their work addressing the health needs of LGBTQ and gender-diverse people.

Since our founding, Ibis has worked in partnership with providers, communities, community-based organizations, and advocates to conduct rigorous research to not only advance sexual and reproductive health care access, but also to shift power and advance human rights and racial justice. As a small research nonprofit, grant funding is critical to executing our mission, and receiving an NIH grant is crucial.

Successfully passing the NIH's rigorous review process is a marker of high-quality work that will have a significant impact. After years of preparation and revision, we were thrilled to receive a grant in 2023. The project was designed to identify and test inclusive and more accurate questions on sexual and reproductive health for research to ensure that all people seeking sexual and reproductive health care can access it. While this research would benefit all of us, it was structured to focus on the gaping hole in our knowledge about sexual and reproductive health experiences of trans and gender-diverse people. The NIH itself said that these populations were underserved in sexual health research.

This March, as we learned NIH grants were being terminated, we began planning for the worst. But that did not prepare us for the shock of reading our termination letter, which claimed that our grant was “unscientific,” focused on “gender identity,” and likely to “do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.” This is contrary to the conclusions a panel of independent scientists drew when they reviewed and scored the grant as being in the top 2 percent of all applications submitted to the NIH.

Our decision to join this lawsuit was not only about the arbitrary and hurtful termination, but also about the need for rigorous science to improve all of our lives so everyone can be healthy and build the families they choose. As the panel of experts that reviewed our proposal said, the research was not only needed to better understand the reproductive health needs of trans and gender-diverse people, it also was “exceptionally high impact” with “a high likelihood of profound and sustained impact on public health research and clinical practice.” We need this type of high-impact research across so many public health topics to continue to identify new treatments and care strategies. It also allows us to address the glaring differences in health outcomes and experiences based on gender, sexual orientation, geography, race, and income that determine how healthy we are and what access to care we have in the U.S.

During the recent ruling, it was heartening to hear Young push back against the terminations, call out the way that ideology was driving the process, and confirm that there was no evidence that the terminations followed the rigorous science and review process that NIH is known for. We are glad to continue to fight for the rigorous science, inclusive research, and health care that our families, loved ones, and communities need and deserve.

The United States used to set the standard for press freedom. Now, it’s dropped its status as a worldwide leader, according to Reporters Without Borders.

President Donald Trump has spearheaded a historic attack on press freedom in the United States, filing three lawsuits against news companies such as ABC, CBS, and the Des Moines Register in the past few months alone. The president’s litigious approach to the press challenges long-standing legal protection for journalists under a landmark Supreme Court case from 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan.

The ruling originally protected The New York Times against expensive defamation lawsuits brought by southern government officials during the Civil Rights Movement. Since then, the case has become a crucial precedent for press freedom. It has served to protect journalists who speak truth to power, and has allowed news organizations to publish landmark stories, like the Washington Post’s Watergate investigation, as well as reporting on corporate malfeasance by tobacco and petrochemical companies among others, without fear of reprisal.

In the first installment of “Press in Peril,” an ACLU blog series on free press, we explore arguably the most important case for press freedom.

New York Times v. Sullivan stems from an advertisement that ran in The New York Times during the Civil Rights Movement. Sponsored by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King, the advertisement accused officials in Montogomery, Alabama and other southern states of inflicting violence on civil rights protestors. The advertisement contained several factual inaccuracies irrelevant to the substance of the accusations, including incorrect names of songs protestors had sung on Alabama’s capitol steps and the false claim that Montgomery officials had padlocked the dining hall of Alabama State College.

Public officials in Alabama did not take kindly to the advertisement's criticism. Although the advertisement did not mention any officials by name, the commissioner of the Montgomery Police Department, L.B. Sullivan, sued The New York Times for damages, claiming that the advertisement defamed, or made false statements against, him and other Montogomery officials. Alabama court ruled that The New York Times was at fault, ordering the paper to pay $500,000 to Sullivan.

In mid-century America, defamation cases against the press were not uncommon. Public officials in the South often used such cases strategically against the press to damage reputations and silence criticism. As news outlets sent reporters to cover civil rights protests, they often faced hostility, physical attacks, civil libel suits, and even criminal libel prosecutions for their reporting.

Apart from Sullivan, more than 10 other Alabama officials sued The New York Times for defamation stemming from the same advertisement. As a result, The New York Times faced millions of dollars in expected damages. Considering the newspaper’s small presence in the South and the threat of bankruptcy if they had to pay such high damages, the newspaper ordered all of its reporters to leave Alabama until the suit was settled. Fearing the same fate as the New York Times, other outlets contemplated doing the same.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of The New York Times in 1964. The court reasoned that Sullivan’s status as a public official required a new standard of review to avoid censorship of the press when covering stories of public interest.

Before this historic ruling, state law largely governed defamation cases. But the Supreme Court held that, to provide breathing space for true speech and ensure that public debate remains uninhibited, the First Amendment protects reporting on public officials and public figures even when it contains inaccuracies. The Supreme Court held that defamation liability could be imposed only when the speaker knows the speech is false or intentionally disregarded a high risk of material inaccuracy. This became known as the actual malice standard. As the Supreme Court recognized, if powerful people could sue the media every time they made a mistake or said something critical, a robust media landscape would cease to exist. Most outlets cannot afford lengthy litigation or damages, and the high price would scare them away from investigative or critical reporting.

By requiring public officials and public figures to prove actual malice, the ruling made it harder to punish newspapers for good faith reporting on controversial issues. This emboldened a new generation of journalists, who could now investigate public officials across the country without fear of retaliation for their reporting.

Sullivan established robust First Amendment protections for speech about public officials, leaving speech about powerful and prominent individuals outside of government vulnerable to defamation suits.

The Supreme Court addressed this discrepancy and created a broader category of “public figures” in 1967 to include people with a role of prominence, fame, or notoriety in society. Since

then, courts have applied the actual malice standard to defamation cases against media outlets brought by A-list celebrities, corporate leaders, and activists. For example, rapper Drake sued Universal Music Group in January, alleging the song “Not Like Us” by Kendrick Lamar defamed Drake — but as a public figure, he will need to prove actual malice, a high legal bar, to win.

Although deeply embedded in American culture, Sullivan has still generated controversy. In 2021, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch made headlines when they wrote separate dissents to the majority’s decision not to hear a defamation case, Berisha v. Lawson. The case surrounded a defamation lawsuit filed by Shkelzen Berisha, son of a well-known Albanian politician, against the author of “Arms and Dudes,” a book that was popularized by the 2016 film “War Dogs.” Berisha alleged the author falsely associated him with the Albanian mafia.

Disagreeing with the lower courts’ application of Sullivan and the precedent as a whole, Thomas and Gorsuch called for the case to be reviewed and overturned. By calling for Sullivan to be reviewed, Thomas and Gorsuch challenged decades of precedent and alarmed journalists and First Amendment experts across the country.

In his latest attack against the press, Trump is now testing the limits of defamation law by suing media organizations such as ABC, CBS, and more

Trump sued ABC and anchor George Stephanopoulos for stating on-air that Trump was liable for rape, arguing that he had instead been found liable for sexual abuse. ABC News and Stephanopoulos reached a settlement for 15 million dollars and an issuance of an editor’s note of regret rather than going to trial.

Despite recent challenges in the Supreme Court and by the current presidential administration, New York Times v. Sullivan remains a bedrock case for freedom of the press in the United States 60 years later. The higher standard that applies to public officials and public figures remains essential to the First Amendment, keeping speech on matters of public concern uninhibited and enabling the press to seek truth to the best of their ability. The actual malice standard is particularly crucial as a new wave of independent journalists, most of whom lack funds for legal defense, call out public officials online and pursue stories that shine a light on government abuses of power.

The ACLU is committed to fighting for reporters’ right to hold those in power accountable. Through “Press in Peril,” our ongoing series, we’re highlighting the challenges facing the press in a democracy under pressure.

President Donald Trump’s second term has been nothing short of a disaster for the immigrant community.

Masked federal agents have arrested people outside schools and homes. President Trump has violated due process rights to “disappear” people to a mega-prison in El Salvador notorious for torture. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents have abducted people from courthouses as they attended their own immigration hearings. The Trump administration has also targeted immigrants like Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Dr. Badar Khan Suri, and Rümeysa Öztürk for their political speech.

Ms. Öztürk was taken by plain-clothes ICE agents outside her home in Somerville, Massachusetts on March 25. For nearly 24 hours, Ms. Öztürk’s attorney was unable to locate her as ICE quickly and quietly moved her to three separate locations across state lines before finally sending her to Louisiana. The ACLU joined her legal team to fight for her freedom. After 45 days in detention, a federal court finally ordered her to be released, allowing her to return home to Massachusetts and continue her studies while the case proceeds.

Ms. Öztürk recently shared her experience with Vanity Fair. While her story is harrowing, she hopes that it can inspire people to recognize their capacity to create change. Although many people and communities are directly affected and harmed, there are things you can do. Together, Ms. Öztürk and the ACLU have compiled this resource to offer some guidelines to start advocating and supporting immigrant communities right now.

Here are ways that you can take action and support immigrants’ rights:

1. Write your member of Congress and demand that they vote no on any bill that would punish noncitizens for exercising their First Amendment rights. Citizens and noncitizens alike have the right to free speech – but when the government tries to withhold the rights of some, all of our rights are at risk.

2. Stay informed on the abuses in our immigration detention system and share the stories of immigrant community members being impacted by this administration’s cruelty. The administration is trying to fearmonger and scapegoat immigrants, when the reality is that immigrants are vital to our communities and our economy – and they have been throughout U.S. history.

3. Know your rights when encountering ICE agents to help keep our communities safe: learn more about how you can protect yourself and your immigrant neighbors, share resources with your networks, and organize a know your rights workshop in your community.

4. Join protests or other actions in your community. Now more than ever, we must continue to raise our voices and support our immigrant neighbors and loved ones. Take action with organizations like the ACLU and sign-up to stay informed about events in your area.

5. Volunteer with trusted organizations protecting immigrants’ rights. If you speak more than one language, you can volunteer as an interpreter or translator with organizations like Kids in Need of Defense or the Amica Center. Navigating the immigration system is scary and even more overwhelming for people who do not speak English – translators help bridge that gap by providing language assistance to people in detention or during their court proceedings.