NIH & False Claims Act: University Concerns
- The inclusion of False Claims Act language in new National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant terms has stirred debate among legal experts and university officials.
- Some legal scholars suggest universities may be hesitant to challenge the new policies due to the risk of protracted and expensive litigation.Richard Epstein, a libertarian legal scholar, proposed...
- The NIH did not respond to requests for comment regarding the new grant language.
Universities are wrestling with the implications of new NIH grant terms incorporating False Claims Act language. This shift sparks critical questions about their legal role and potential for costly litigation. Fear of protracted legal battles may deter institutions from challenging these NIH directives, according to legal scholars. News Directory 3 reports on the expert opinions, including those from Richard Epstein, who alleges the terms are unconstitutional. we also examine the reactions of academics like Michael Yassa and legal professionals, such as Andrew Miltenberg, who question the legitimacy of these changes. The future hinges on the willingness of universities to challenge these clauses.Discover what’s next as the legal landscape evolves.
NIH Grant Terms Spark Debate Over University Role and Legal Challenges
Updated June 18, 2025
The inclusion of False Claims Act language in new National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant terms has stirred debate among legal experts and university officials. The added stipulation has raised questions about the university’s role and potential legal ramifications.
Some legal scholars suggest universities may be hesitant to challenge the new policies due to the risk of protracted and expensive litigation.Richard Epstein, a libertarian legal scholar, proposed that a trade group like the Association of American Universities could mount a legal challenge. He argues the NIH terms are unconstitutional because the spending conditions are not authorized by Congress and are “unrelated to scientific endeavors.”
The NIH did not respond to requests for comment regarding the new grant language.
Michael Yassa, a professor of neurobiology and behavior at the University of California, Irvine, expressed surprise at the inclusion of the false Claims Act language. After reviewing a recent Notice of Award, Yassa stated he would consult with a legal team.
andrew Miltenberg, a new York City attorney known for his work on Title IX litigation, questioned the legality and appropriateness of the new grant language. “I don’t actually understand why it’s in there,” Miltenberg said. “I don’t think it belongs in there.I don’t think it’s legal, and I think it’s going to take some lawsuits to have courts interpret the fact that there’s no real place for it.”
“I think this is a time that calls for some courage,” said Bagenstos. “If every university decides the risks are too great, then the current policies will prevail without challenge, he said, even though some are legally unsound.”
what’s next
The legal community anticipates potential lawsuits to clarify the scope and legality of the False Claims Act language in NIH grants. The willingness of universities to challenge the terms remains uncertain.