Administrative: Engineer complains that National Science Foundation is ignoring him

Where a software engineer sued the National Science Foundation, because it failed to invite him to submit a proposal for research funding, but each of his claims failed as a matter of law, the suit was dismissed.

Background

Raju Chiluvuri sued the National Science Foundation, or NSF, after it repeatedly declined to “invite” him to submit a full proposal for research funding. Plaintiff maintains that these denials were caused by NSF’s use of “unqualified reviewers who failed to recognize the transformative nature of [his] discoveries.” NSF has filed a motion to dismiss.

ADA

The first four counts are brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA. Plaintiff seeks extraordinary relief, asking for this court to rewrite the procedural manner through which a federal agency discharges its mission, and circumvent that procedure by having his proposals approved.

The APA precludes judicial review of agency action that is “committed to agency discretion by law[.]” The Fourth Circuit held that to determine whether an agency action was committed to agency discretion for purposes of § 701(a)(2) the court must make a two-part inquiry.

First, a court determines whether the subject-matter of the agency action “is the kind of agency action that ‘has traditionally been committed to agency discretion.’” If so, the court applies a presumption against judicial review. Next, the court looks to whether Congress has overcome this presumption by providing “guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers” by “circumscribing an agency’s power.”

Here, NSF balances complex scientific technical knowledge with the potential for commercialization and public benefit of any given proposal. Congress created NSF to house this type of expertise in a particular federal agency. There is also no “liberty or property interest” that an applicant for grant funding has in their proposal, and plaintiff does not cite to any authority that suggests otherwise.

The same is true for the procedural framework that NSF has erected for consideration of grant submissions, including its decision to enact the Project Pitch program and ProSPCT program. In addition to this analysis, plaintiff offers no authority in support of the idea that decision-making has not been committed to NSF in this case, outside of appealing to the APA itself. Given this, a presumption against judicial review shall be applied.

Plaintiff relies on 15 U.S.C. § 638(s) as guidelines that call for merit-based selection procedures for funds awarded through SBIR programs. Section 638(s) is a single paragraph, and the statute provides no definition for “merit-based” review. Plaintiff maintains that despite this, NSF has violated the SBIR enabling statute and 42 U.S.C. 1862s (NSF’s statutory charter), which both affirm a merit-based review method. However, neither defines merit-based review, and plaintiff offers no authority as to what standard the court could apply.

The remaining portions of plaintiff’s APA claims – that NSF implemented Project Pitch in the absence of notice and comment rulemaking and failed to follow its own rules in implementing Project Pitch and ProSPCT – also fail.

Constitutional claims

Defendant argues that any constitutional claim premised on the alleged blocking of plaintiff’s messages is moot because the technological measures put in place to re-route his messages are no longer in place, and therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction over these claims. As plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any “real or imminent threat that [he] will be wronged again” by these technological measures, or even address NSF’s mootness argument, plaintiff’s claims premised upon NSF’s actions with respect to “blocking” his electronic mail messages or telephone calls are moot and thus dismissed.

Next, plaintiff concedes that he has insufficient facts to state a plausible Equal Protection claim under the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, Count Seven will be dismissed. In Count Six, plaintiff asserts that NSF officials retaliated against him for criticizing the denial of his Project Pitch submissions. As previously discussed, plaintiff’s claims related to the “blocked” messages and calls is now moot. Plaintiff further failed to plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim with respect to NSF’s denial of his subsequent proposals.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Chiluvuri v. National Science Foundation, Case No. 1:24-cv-2051, Sept. 2, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Hilton). VLW 025-3-359. 20 pp.