What Happened: A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Trump administration’s termination of hundreds of grants by the National Institutes of Health was “void and illegal,” ordering some of them to be reinstated, including many profiled by ProPublica in recent months.

District Judge William G. Young made the ruling in two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s directives and cancellations: One case was brought by more than a dozen states’ attorneys general, and the other was led by the American Public Health Association alongside several other organizations and researchers.

In Monday’s ruling, the judge determined that the directives that led to the grant terminations were “arbitrary and capricious” and said they had “no force and effect.” The judge’s ruling ordered the funding of the grants to be restored. It only covers grants that have been identified by the plaintiffs in the cases.

What the Judge Said: After Young ruled that the agency directives and terminations were illegal, he noted that the government’s practices were discriminatory.

“This represents racial discrimination, and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community,” he said. “That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out, and I do so.”

This year, the Trump administration banned the NIH from funding grants that had a connection to “diversity, equity and inclusion,” alleging that such research may be discriminatory. ProPublica previously found that caught up in mass terminations was research focused on why some populations — including women and sexual, racial or ethnic minorities — may be more at risk of certain disorders or diseases.

“I have never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable,” Young said during Monday’s hearing. “I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years, and I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this, and I confine my remarks to this record, to health care.”

He also noted the administration’s targeting of LGBTQ+ research. “It is palpably clear these directives and the set of terminated grants here also are designed to frustrate, to stop research that may bear on the health — we are talking about health here — the health of Americans, of our LGBTQ community,” he said. “That’s appalling.”

Background: In recent months, ProPublica has been covering the toll of the grant cancellations by the NIH. More than 150 researchers, scientists and investigators have reached out to ProPublica and shared their experiences, revealing how the terminations are dramatically reshaping the biomedical and scientific enterprise of the nation at large.

They described how years of federally funded research may never be published, how critical treatments may never be developed and how millions of patients could be harmed.

“Two and a half years into a three-year grant, and to all of a sudden stop and not fully be able to answer the original questions, it’s just a waste,” said Brown University associate professor Ethan Moitra, whose grant studying mental health treatment for LGBTQ+ people was terminated.

Response: White House spokesperson Kush Desai said it was “appalling that a federal judge would use court proceedings to express his political views and preferences,” adding that “justice ceases to be administered when a judge clearly rules on the basis of his political ideologies.”

Desai also defended the administration’s policies targeting “diversity, equity and inclusion,” calling it a “flawed and racist logic.” He also said that the administration was committed to “restoring the Gold Standard of Science,” which he claimed involves a recognition of the “biological reality of the male and female sexes.” The NIH, he said, is shifting “research spending to address our chronic disease crisis instead, not to validate ideological activism.”

Andrew G. Nixon, the director of communications for the Department of Health and Human Services, told ProPublica that the agency “stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,” and that it was “exploring all legal options, including filing an appeal and moving to stay the order.”

Why It Matters: The mass cancellation of grants in response to political policy shifts has no historical precedent, experts told ProPublica, and marks an extraordinary departure from the agency’s established practices. ProPublica previously revealed that the Department of Government Efficiency — the administration’s cost-cutting initiative —— gave the agency direction on what to cut and why, raising questions about the provenance of the terminations.

The judge’s ruling adds to a growing number of legal decisions halting or scaling back the administration’s actions. As of Monday, according to The New York Times, there have been more than 180 rulings that have “at least temporarily paused” the administration’s practices.

Whether the administration follows Monday’s ruling, however, remains an open question. As ProPublica reported, the NIH has previously terminated research grants even after a federal judge blocked such cuts, and the administration has disregarded several other rulings.

“If the vacation of these particular grant terminations, the vacation of these directives, taken as a whole, does not result in forthwith disbursement of funds,” Young said in Monday’s hearing, “the court has ample jurisdiction.”