After a federal judge in Boston ruled Monday that the National Institutes of Health acted illegally in terminating about 800 research grants, some scientists with canceled grants are unsure what the ruling means for them.

The grants focused on topics related to diversity, transgender issues, and other areas of research unpopular with the Trump administration.

U.S. District Court Judge William Young ruled that the NIH’s terminations of those grants were “arbitrary and capricious,” and he ordered the agency to immediately resume payments.

“NIH had come forward with no explanation as to why important medical research that seemed like it would be essential to protect the health of people in this country, why it is all of the sudden on the chopping block,” said attorney Rachel Meeropol of the ACLU, which represents some of the plaintiffs. “The agency completely failed to explain what it was doing adequately to the American people.”

The judge went on to address what he described as a “darker aspect” of the case he said he felt compelled to address. He said the government’s termination of grants on topics like health disparities amounted to racial discrimination and discrimination against the LGBTQ population.

“We are so, I guess, grateful to hear it finally spoken out loud that this is indeed discrimination,” said Ariel Beccia, an instructor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and an instructor of epidemiology at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.

Beccia’s research is studying mental health inequities experienced by LGBTQ populations during the pandemic.

“It makes real tangible difference in the lives of marginalized communities when we have evidence to say, ‘here are the inequities and here are solutions,’” she said.

But in March, she got some surprising news.

“It was an email from the NIH saying that, effective immediately, the grant was terminated because its focus no longer aligned with agency priorities,” Beccia said.

On Monday, Judge Young ruled that roughly 800 terminations like that were illegal, and are now void. Even so, Beccia said she’s not sure yet what the decision means for her research.

“I’m not sure if my grant is included,” Beccia said. “I’m reading almost every article I can that’s coming out reporting on this court decision, and there’s no clear answers yet.”

The list of 800 terminated grants that have been referenced in the trial has not been made public. Attorneys for the ACLU say the ruling only applies to parties involved in the lawsuits. That would include the individual researchers who were named plaintiffs, as well as members of the American Public Health Association and the union UAW, and researchers at public institutions in the 22 states that also filed suit.

“We’re incredibly grateful for the bravery of our clients who have stepped up in this fight,” said Kenneth Parreno, an attorney with the group Protect Democracy, which represented some of those plaintiffs. “I mean, this is an existential crisis here for science and public health. They put a lot on the line.”

Even for the grants that are clearly included in the judge’s ruling, it’s not yet certain if payments will resume. In a written statement, a spokesperson for the department of Health and Human Services said “HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people.”

The statement goes on to say that HHS is exploring all legal options, including filing an appeal and moving to stay the order.