4 ms·

"irreparable harm" in this case is a legal term of art, which sort of translates to "cannot be fixed by any amount of money later". If you lose a job for 5 y

by dmoy 1y ago

"irreparable harm" in this case is a legal term of art, which sort of translates to "cannot be fixed by *any* amount of money later". If you lose a job for 5 years, work a minimum wage burger flipper job, and then win a $100 million judgement, you're more or less made whole in the eyes of the court. So losing a grant is probably more along those lines, in the context of "irreparable harm" for an injunction. You could make the argument (and I'm guessing it was?) that for scientific grants specifically, if the goal isn't money in the first place, and the lack of grant makes a scientific career impossible to fix later even with any amount of money (say grants 10x as large), then maybe you meet "irreparable harm"? I don't know if the courts would buy that.

prasadjoglekar 1y ago
Spot on. And the inverse - forcing the govt to dispense the grant is not reversible. Once that money is spent in buying equipment, salaries etc. it's not coming back.
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
Um, this seems ass-backwards to me. If some grant is denied when it should've been approved, the only harm that should be considered is "was this money allocated to the research?"... not "was this researcher's career harmed?". We do not allocate grant money to further the career goals of academics. The public and the government that represents it have zero interest in furthering anyone's careers.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  In the US legal system in general, the interests of the government are not trump cards. If the law says that the government should pay you $1000, it doesn't matter whether the public or the government feel they have an interest in paying you, nor whether some executive official thinks the original purpose of that law is served by paying you. In this case, the law does give the executive some discretion to decide based on their priorities whether they really owe you $1000, but the plaintiffs argue the NSF has exceeded that discretion.
- dmoy 1y ago
  > Um, this seems ass-backwards to me. If some grant is denied when it should've been approved, the only harm that should be considered is "was this money allocated to the research?"... not "was this researcher's career harmed?". Right, exactly. And that seems to be exactly how the court ruled on this injunction. Since "just money" typically can't reach the bar of "irreparable harm", then an injunction that requires meeting the bar of "irreparable harm" is not granted. The case itself still proceeds, there's just not an immediate injunction granted while the (slow as hell) court proceedings continue.
jfengel 1y ago
In the court's opinion, if I deprive them of oxygen for one hour, and then give them pure oxygen for the next 10 years, have they been made whole? Justice delayed is justice denied.
- dmoy 1y ago
  Death is a perfect example of something that would reach the "irreparable harm" bar. Money is typically not.
  - jfengel 1y ago
    Money is not. But your job is. If destroy a department, money does not bring it back to life. It disposes of its materials, disperses its personnel, and loses its laboratory. Unless somebody volunteers to keep your data, it gets lost. And if you're working in biology, samples and research animals will be literally dead. It is "irreparable harm" in the legal sense.
    - dmoy 1y ago
      Right and hence the last paragraph of my initial response. Doesn't look like the court agreed though
      - jfengel 1y ago
        Thank you. I appreciate that. Perhaps you could explain one more thing for me. How did the filing lawyer make such a (seemingly) elementary mistake? Why wasn't it caught earlier (by the judge, by their colleagues, by anybody with an interest in this case)?
eli_gottlieb 1y ago
> You could make the argument (and I'm guessing it was?) that for scientific grants specifically, if the goal isn't money in the first place, and the lack of grant makes a scientific career impossible to fix later even with any amount of money (say grants 10x as large), then maybe you meet "irreparable harm"? I think I'd agree with that, yes. I'd even go as far as to argue that you've caused irreparable harm to the public insofar as the grants specifically would have funded open-access publications.

"irreparable harm" in this case is a legal term of art, which sort of translates to "cannot be fixed by *any* amount of money later". If you lose a job for 5 y

by dmoy 1y ago

prasadjoglekar 1y ago

Spot on. And the inverse - forcing the govt to dispense the grant is not reversible. Once that money is spent in buying equipment, salaries etc. it's not coming back.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

Um, this seems ass-backwards to me. If some grant is denied when it should've been approved, the only harm that should be considered is "was this money allocated to the research?"... not "was this researcher's career harmed?". We do not allocate grant money to further the career goals of academics. The public and the government that represents it have zero interest in furthering anyone's careers.

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
In the US legal system in general, the interests of the government are not trump cards. If the law says that the government should pay you $1000, it doesn't matter whether the public or the government feel they have an interest in paying you, nor whether some executive official thinks the original purpose of that law is served by paying you. In this case, the law does give the executive some discretion to decide based on their priorities whether they really owe you $1000, but the plaintiffs argue the NSF has exceeded that discretion.
dmoy 1y ago
> Um, this seems ass-backwards to me. If some grant is denied when it should've been approved, the only harm that should be considered is "was this money allocated to the research?"... not "was this researcher's career harmed?". Right, exactly. And that seems to be exactly how the court ruled on this injunction. Since "just money" typically can't reach the bar of "irreparable harm", then an injunction that requires meeting the bar of "irreparable harm" is not granted. The case itself still proceeds, there's just not an immediate injunction granted while the (slow as hell) court proceedings continue.

jfengel 1y ago

In the court's opinion, if I deprive them of oxygen for one hour, and then give them pure oxygen for the next 10 years, have they been made whole? Justice delayed is justice denied.

dmoy 1y ago
Death is a perfect example of something that would reach the "irreparable harm" bar. Money is typically not.
- jfengel 1y ago
  Money is not. But your job is. If destroy a department, money does not bring it back to life. It disposes of its materials, disperses its personnel, and loses its laboratory. Unless somebody volunteers to keep your data, it gets lost. And if you're working in biology, samples and research animals will be literally dead. It is "irreparable harm" in the legal sense.
  - dmoy 1y ago
    Right and hence the last paragraph of my initial response. Doesn't look like the court agreed though
    - jfengel 1y ago
      Thank you. I appreciate that. Perhaps you could explain one more thing for me. How did the filing lawyer make such a (seemingly) elementary mistake? Why wasn't it caught earlier (by the judge, by their colleagues, by anybody with an interest in this case)?

eli_gottlieb 1y ago

> You could make the argument (and I'm guessing it was?) that for scientific grants specifically, if the goal isn't money in the first place, and the lack of grant makes a scientific career impossible to fix later even with any amount of money (say grants 10x as large), then maybe you meet "irreparable harm"? I think I'd agree with that, yes. I'd even go as far as to argue that you've caused irreparable harm to the public insofar as the grants specifically would have funded open-access publications.