Regardless of what else they do, the indirect costs pay for various critical campus services, also in research hospitals. Suddenly that amount would be reduced, a large budgetary deficit would create that is difficult to cover without closing programs.
The resulting damage to research campuses in their states was one of the damage cited by the States that joins the lawsuit as part of their effort to establish status. The other was the damage caused by the general delay in the biomedical investigation that will activate the policy, the states of which will delay the availability of treatments for their citizens.
The participation of the states include most of those who won by Kamala Harris in 2024, as well as states who voted on Trump, but currently have democratic governors and lawyers -general: Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin. In particular, the suit only looks for lighting from the amended NIH policy for institutions in those states; In essence, they have states caused by the republicans caused by the damage caused by the new policy.
Allegations and back -up accusations
The States claim that the new NIH policy, by registering on all current subsidies, is equal to rewriting a contract. It quotes an earlier legal decision that established that “once the [Notice of Award] is signed whether money is signed, the [Notice of Award] And the subsidy conditions are binding on the beneficiary and the government. “Furthermore, the States claim that the policy violates two separate documents.
The first is the law of administrative procedures, which describes the processes that agencies must follow when formulating formal rules to translate legislation into implementations. This prevents, among other things, that agencies formulate rules that are 'random and fickle'. It states that by including audits and negotiations in the process to set them up, the current individualized indirect rates are anything but.
The states, on the other hand, claim, there is no significant basis for the indirect rate of 15 percent. “The notification of the tariff change is random and fickle in, among other things the failure to articulate the bases for the categorical rate hood of 15 percent,” the lawsuit claims, “it cannot be considered and his contempt for the actual findings that The bases were currently surgery indirect cost interest.
