The First Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a consolidated legal challenge to the National Institutes of Health involving 22 states, major medical organizations, and prestigious universities opposing policies implemented under newly appointed leadership. The cases, numbered 25-1343, 25-1344, and 25-1345, target the NIH under Director Jay Bhattacharya and the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts leads the first case alongside 21 other states, including Michigan, Illinois, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Delaware, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Dana Nessel represents Michigan in her official capacity as the state's attorney general.
In a parallel challenge, major medical organizations have joined forces to contest the same federal defendants. The Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals, and the Greater New York Hospital Association comprise the plaintiff coalition in case 25-1344.
The third consolidated case features an impressive array of academic institutions challenging the NIH and HHS policies. The Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, and Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities lead a coalition that includes some of the nation's most prestigious institutions. Individual universities named as plaintiffs include Brandeis University, Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of California system, the University of Chicago, Cornell University, George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Rochester, Tufts University, and the California Institute of Technology.
The legal challenges specifically name Dr. Jay Bhattacharya in his official capacity as NIH Director and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS Secretary. Bhattacharya, a physician and economist known for his criticism of certain pandemic policies, was appointed to lead the NIH under the current administration. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic and environmental lawyer, assumed leadership of HHS with promises to reform federal health agencies.
The cases appear to be appeals, indicating that lower court proceedings have already taken place. The fact that the states, medical organizations, and universities are listed as appellees suggests they previously prevailed in district court proceedings, while the federal agencies and officials are appealing those decisions to the First Circuit.
The timing of these consolidated appeals reflects the swift legal response to policy changes implemented by the new NIH and HHS leadership. The broad coalition of plaintiffs spans the political spectrum geographically, including traditionally blue states like California and Massachusetts alongside states with more varied political leadership.
The involvement of major medical education organizations signals concerns within the healthcare and research communities about potential changes to federal funding priorities, research guidelines, or regulatory frameworks. The Association of American Medical Colleges represents medical schools nationwide, while the pharmacy and public health associations encompass professional education in those fields.
University participation in the legal challenge suggests potential impacts on federal research funding, which comprises a significant portion of many institutions' research budgets. The NIH distributes approximately $45 billion annually in research grants, making it the largest source of funding for medical research globally.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, has jurisdiction over federal appeals from Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. The court's handling of these consolidated cases will likely establish important precedents for federal health policy implementation.
Legal observers note that challenges to federal agency policies often center on procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to follow specific rulemaking procedures and provide adequate justification for policy changes. The consolidated nature of these appeals suggests common legal issues across all three cases.
The broad geographic and institutional scope of the opposition indicates significant concern about the direction of federal health policy under the new leadership. State attorneys general typically file suit when they believe federal actions exceed statutory authority or harm state interests.
The outcome of these appeals could affect federal health research funding, regulatory oversight of medical products, and the implementation of public health policies nationwide. Given the prominence of the institutions involved and the scope of potential policy changes, the First Circuit's decisions will likely face further appeal regardless of the outcome.
The cases represent one of the first major legal tests of the new administration's health policy agenda and could establish important precedents for the relationship between federal health agencies and state governments, medical institutions, and research universities.