The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants

Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration’s decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is “Calvinball jurisprudence,” which appears to be designed to ensure that “this Administration always wins.”

The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve “research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer’s, and cardiovascular disease,” among other things. T