A federal appeals court unanimously ruled Monday that the Trump administration cannot drastically cut National Institutes of Health funding for research overhead, commonly called “indirect costs.”

Indirect costs is money added to grants to help pay for some of the day-to-day operations at a researcher’s institution, and the Trump administration had capped the rate at 15 percent, arguing previous rates were exorbitant, unaudited and often abused.

Proponents argue the ruling “protects critical funds that facilitate biomedical research, like lab, faculty, infrastructure, and utility costs,” according to a news release from the Massachusetts attorney general’s office.

“Universities and research institutions across the country rely on NIH funding to conduct groundbreaking research, and patients and families depend on those medical advancements to improve and even save their lives,” AG Andrea Joy Campbell stated after the ruling was issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

“Today’s victory sends a clear message that the Trump Administration cannot sacrifice the health of our residents for its own political agenda,” Campbell stated.

Previous indirect cost rates for universities averaged 28 percent, but some universities received indirect costs from the NIH at rates greater than 60 percent.

“The ruling is a victory for the prominent higher-ed associations who joined the attorneys general of 22 states in suing over the move last year, claiming that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the explicit language of congressional appropriations,” the Chronicle of Higher Education reported.

“…The Trump administration could appeal to the Supreme Court. STAT reported that a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services was ‘unable to comment’ on the ruling.”

As The College Fix previously reported, higher education and research policy experts remain unconvinced every penny given to universities to cover the indirect costs of doing scientific research is truly essential or well spent.

MORE: Scholars debate pros, cons of Trump order capping health research funding’s indirect costs