Pull to refresh
Logo
What Changed
Following Why Sign Up
Judge overturns DOE clean energy grant cancellations tied to states' votes

Judge overturns DOE clean energy grant cancellations tied to states' votes

Rule Changes

Judge Amit Mehta's ruling covers 11 awards in five states. A year on, most of the cancelled money is still frozen, and four Senate Democrats want it restored before they vote on a permitting bill.

October 27th, 2026: Senate Democrats press for grant restoration before permitting vote

Overview

Updated Oct 28

A federal judge ordered the Energy Department to restore $82.1 million in clean energy grants it cancelled in October 2025, ruling the cuts violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee by singling out grantees in states that voted for Kamala Harris. A year on, most of the money is still frozen: about 61% of the 321 cancelled awards remain in disputes with the agency, and projects the department said it would keep have received almost nothing.

The fight has moved beyond that courtroom. Four Senate Democrats want the grants restored before the Senate votes on a permitting bill, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, and House Democrats have accused Energy Secretary Chris Wright of misleading Congress about why the awards were cut. In California, a judge set an October 27 deadline for the department to explain what legal authority it had to cancel grants over a state's politics.

Why it matters

Two courts have blocked grant cuts tied to how a state voted. The fight now holds up a Senate permitting bill.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

$82.1M
Grants restored by October 2026 ruling
Eleven awards across five states, restored by Judge Mehta's judgment.
11
Grant awards restored
Energy Department awards reinstated by the ruling.
321
Awards DOE terminated in October 2025
321 funding awards cancelled in October 2025, per Latitude Media's count.
284
Recipients sent cancellation notices
DOE flagged 624 awards for termination; the Office of Management and Budget cut the list to 284 recipients, all but one in states Harris won, per a FactCheck.org review.
$7.6B
Value of October 2025 terminations
DOE's court admission put the total at $7.6 billion; OMB Director Russell Vought called it "nearly $8 billion."
$27.6M
Grants restored in January 2026
Seven awards reinstated in the Saint Paul ruling that set the precedent.
61%
Cancelled awards still in dispute
About 206 of the 321 awards remain in the agency's dispute process, per the DOE Alumni Network and Lawyers for Good Government.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

Amit Mehta
Amit Mehta
U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia
Presiding over the grant termination cases
 Russell Vought
Russell Vought
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Announced the October 2025 grant cancellations

Organizations Involved

U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
Federal agency
Ordered to restore 18 awards so far and still defending the rest in court

The federal agency that awarded the 11 grants and then terminated them in October 2025.
AI
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Professional society
Lead plaintiff in the October 2026 challenge

A professional society for chemical engineers and the lead plaintiff in the challenge that produced the October 2026 ruling.
New Buildings Institute
New Buildings Institute
Nonprofit
Plaintiff that lost four grants

A nonprofit focused on building energy efficiency and the plaintiff that lost the most grants, four in total.
PE
Proton Energy Systems Inc.
Company
Plaintiff that lost a hydrogen grant

A hydrogen electrolysis firm whose cancelled $6.1 million grant targeted lower-cost hydrogen production.

Timeline

October 2025 October 2026

9 events Latest: October 27th, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. Senate Democrats press for grant restoration before permitting vote

    Latest Politics

    Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Ed Markey of Massachusetts ask the Senate energy and environment committees to secure a commitment to reinstate the cancelled clean energy grants before a vote on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. They also want a written pledge that grants will not be cancelled over a state's politics.

  2. House Democrats accuse Wright of misleading Congress

    Politics

    The top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee send Energy Secretary Chris Wright a second letter over testimony in which he denied politics drove the October 2025 cancellations. A California court had given the department until October 27 to explain its legal authority for the cuts.

  3. Judge restores $82.1 million in grants

    Legal

    Mehta enters final judgment for 11 grantees in New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Minnesota and Colorado, calling the terminations discriminatory. The judgment is final and appealable.

  4. Report finds most cancelled awards still frozen

    Report

    The DOE Alumni Network and Lawyers for Good Government report that more than 200 of the 321 awards cancelled in October 2025 remain in the agency's review process. It also finds 69% of projects on DOE's 'retained' list have received negligible new funding, and the agency has paid out about 1% of committed funds since April.

  5. Class action filed over remaining cancellations

    Legal

    A California nonprofit sues in Massachusetts on behalf of awards cancelled in October 2025, in a proposed class action covering grantees whose money has not been restored by the two Mehta rulings.

  6. DOE stipulates that state politics drove the terminations

    Legal

    In Thakur v. Trump, a class action brought by University of California researchers, the department signs stipulations stating the terminations were "based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state."

  7. Court blocks first round of terminations

    Legal

    Judge Mehta rules DOE's cancellation of seven grants worth $27.6 million violated equal protection. DOE had conceded that whether a grantee was in a 'Blue State' drove the selections.

  8. DOE reinstates the Saint Paul grants

    Action

    The Energy Department restores the seven awards after the January ruling, per court filings.

  9. DOE cancels more than 300 energy grants

    Action

    On the day a government shutdown begins, OMB Director Russell Vought announces that nearly $8 billion in clean energy grants are being cancelled. DOE issues termination notices for over 300 awards.

Scenarios

1

DOE appeals and the D.C. Circuit upholds the ruling

Possible Resolves by Q3 2027

Discussed by: Utility Dive, which noted the judgment is 'final, appealable'

DOE has 60 days from the judgment to file a notice of appeal. Because DOE already admitted in the Saint Paul case that Blue State location drove the October 2025 selections, an appeals court would review that concession on the record. A circuit panel is unlikely to overturn a finding based on the government's own admission.

2

DOE reinstates the broader cancelled pool

Possible Resolves by Q1 2027

Discussed by: Plaintiffs' filings, which cite the Saint Paul precedent and the admitted Blue State targeting

Facing two adverse rulings on the same termination round, DOE could restore the hundreds of other grants it cancelled rather than litigate them one by one. That would return most of the roughly $8 billion to grantees in the states affected by the October 2025 cuts.

3

DOE complies with the $82.1 million judgment without appeal

Possible Resolves by Dec 15, 2026

Discussed by: Court watchers tracking whether the administration keeps appealing after the Saint Paul precedent

If DOE declines to appeal, the judgment becomes final and the 11 grantees receive their funding. DOE would still face the larger question of what to do about the remaining terminated grants, but the specific challenge would close.

4

Pending multi-state lawsuits restore the rest of the cancelled grants

Possible Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: The Well News, which reported the two active cases

Two coalitions are suing to restore the roughly $8 billion cut beyond the 18 grants already ordered back. One case was filed by a group of states led by California and New York; the other by the University of California system.

5

Permitting bill stalls over the grant dispute

Possible Resolves by Nov 13, 2026

Discussed by: Axios, which reported the Democrats' letter stopped short of an ultimatum but made the bill's path "steeper"

Four Senate Democrats want a written commitment that the administration will restore the cancelled grants and stop targeting states by politics before the Senate votes on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. The White House says the text is finished and only a vote remains.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1972–1974

Nixon impoundment of clean-water funds (1972–1974)

President Richard Nixon refused to spend billions of dollars Congress had appropriated for wastewater treatment and other programs, claiming the authority to withhold the money. Congress responded by passing the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Then

Courts ordered some impounded funds released, and Nixon backed down on portions of the clean-water program.

Now

The 1974 law stripped the president of unilateral impoundment power, requiring congressional approval before appropriated funds can be withheld.

Why this matters now

The dispute is the same mechanism: an executive cutting money Congress directed to specific programs. The difference here is that the grants were already awarded and obligated, not merely appropriated.

2018

City of Chicago v. Sessions (2018)

The Justice Department under Jeff Sessions tried to divert Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds from cities it called 'sanctuary cities' by imposing immigration enforcement conditions. The 7th Circuit blocked the conditions, ruling the department could not add requirements Congress had not authorized.

Then

The Justice Department had to release the funds to Chicago and other cities.

Now

Courts restricted the executive's power to attach political conditions to congressionally created grant programs.

Why this matters now

Same principle: the executive cannot strip congressionally funded grants based on political disagreement with the recipients' jurisdictions. Mehta's rulings extend that logic from added conditions to outright termination.

Sources

(17)
+11
Utility Dive ESG Dive Smart Cities Dive The Well News Associated Press U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Developments Today Yahoo News Standing Record Natural Resources Defense Council Latitude Media Axios EdGlenToday.com DOE Alumni Network Associated Press The Well News