Dive Brief:
- The Trump administration violated the Fifth Amendment when it canceled clean energy grants last year based on whether the projects were located in states that voted for the president in 2024, a federal court judge ruled on Monday.
- “There is no rational relationship” between the location-based grant terminations and the government’s stated interest of aligning grant funding with agency priorities, according to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruling.
- The court’s decision covers seven grants totaling $27.6 million. The U.S. Department of Energy’s October terminations included more than $7.5 billion in financial awards to clean energy projects in states that voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris.
Dive Insight:
A DOE spokesperson said the agency disagrees with the judge’s decision and stands by its review process, “which evaluated these awards individually and determined they did not meet the standards necessary to justify the continued spending of taxpayer dollars.”
“The American people deserve a government that is accountable and responsible in managing taxpayer funds,” DOE representative Ben Dietderich said in an emailed statement. He did not respond to questions about a possible appeal.
The lawsuit was filed in November by St. Paul, Minnesota, and a coalition of energy and community advocates: Elevate Energy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Plug In America and the Southeast Community Organization.
“This ruling makes clear that no community should be punished for its politics,” SCO Executive Director Ianni Houmas said in a statement.
District Judge Amit Mehta’s order vacated seven termination notices but also noted the limited nature of the decision.
“By no means does the court conclude that the mere presence of political considerations in an agency action runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. That is not the law. This case is unique,” Mehta wrote. “Defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily — if not exclusively — based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024. There is no rational relationship between that classification and Defendants’ stated governmental interest.”
While the district court decision impacts a limited number of grants, EDF officials said the court’s reasoning and its legal holding would apply to “all who were subject to this unconstitutional action violating equal protection of the law.”
“The court recognized that the Trump Department of Energy vindictively canceled projects for clean affordable energy that just happened to be in states disfavored by the Trump administration, in violation of the bedrock Constitutional guarantee that all people in all states have equal protection under the law,” EDF General Counsel Vickie Patton said in a statement.
Grant terminations were vacated for projects including electric vehicle charging support, the SolSmart technical assistance program, a consumer EV education campaign, an Elevate Energy building performance resource hub and others.
“The court ruling in favor of Elevate is a step toward keeping clean energy affordable and advancing initiatives nationwide,” Elevate CEO Anne Evens said in a statement. “This decision is for the communities across the country who should not have to choose between paying their energy bills and feeding their families.”
