A recent ruling by a US federal court has declared that the cancellation of clean energy grants by the Trump administration was illegal. The decision, issued by Judge Amit Mehta of the District Court for the District of Columbia, found that the Department of Energy’s decision to revoke over $7.5 billion in funding for 223 projects was not constitutionally valid details here.
In October 2025, the Department announced the cancellation of the grants, asserting that the projects failed to adequately advance national energy needs, were economically unviable, and did not offer a sufficient return on investment. The revoked funds had been allocated to efforts such as battery plant upgrades and carbon dioxide emission mitigation in 16 states that had supported the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election. Projects in states that voted for Donald Trump, however, continued to receive support.
A legal challenge was mounted by the city of Saint Paul, Minnesota, along with environmental groups. They argued that the cancellation violated both the Fifth and First Amendments. The court agreed, emphasizing that the decision lacked a rational basis for distinguishing between states based on their political leanings. Specifically, the court found that while the objective of aligning grant funding with agency priorities was legitimate, the selection process appeared to be politically motivated, rather than based on objective, rational criteria.
Under the Fifth Amendment, the government must ensure that any differential treatment resulting from classifications is rationally related to a legitimate purpose. The court noted that the projects terminated in Democratic-led states were comparable to those in Republican-led states that retained funding. The court’s ruling underlined the absence of rational justification for the termination decisions, as confirmed in an Energy News article.
This decision mirrors another recent court ruling allowing work on an offshore wind farm benefiting Rhode Island and Connecticut to proceed, highlighting the judiciary’s role in checking administrative actions relating to environmental initiatives.