Click the link below the picture
.
A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Trump administration’s cancellation of approximately $8 billion in energy grants violated the Constitution by targeting recipients primarily based in Democratic-leaning states.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta issued a 17-page opinion finding the Department of Energy’s (DOE) grant terminations unlawful under the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. The ruling orders the department to restore seven specific grants worth $27.6 million that were part of a broader cancellation affecting more than 200 projects announced by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought on October 1, 2025, the first day of the government shutdown.
Newsweek reached out to the White House and OMB via email on Monday for comment.
Why It Matters
Mehta concluded that “all the awardees (but one) were based in states whose majority of citizens casting votes did not support President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.” The ruling establishes constitutional boundaries on executive branch actions that discriminate based on state political affiliation.
According to NOTUS, the DOE’s decision targeted grantees based in blue states while red-state-based groups using federal funding for similar projects largely avoided termination, creating a pattern of disparate treatment across hundreds of projects nationwide.
What To Know
The DOE terminated grants following Vought’s October 1 announcement on X stating that “nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled.” He listed 16 states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—none of which voted for Trump in 2024.
The next day, Trump posted on Truth Social that he had met with Vought to “determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut” during the shutdown.
The termination letters were initially sent without formal DOE letterhead and informed recipients their awards are “not consistent with this Administration’s goals, policies and priorities.” A week later, identical letters were sent on official agency letterhead. The grants supported environmental projects including electric vehicle development, updated building energy codes, and methane emissions reduction.
According to NOTUS, the administration canceled $460 million for Minnesota transmission lines while preserving $700 million for similar Montana projects, and cut Hawaii wildfire resilience funding while maintaining $160 million for Georgia Power’s grid resilience work. Of 17 battery recycling projects, only three were cut—all in blue states—while the remaining 14 in red states or at national labs continued, NOTUS reported. The disparate treatment extended to multi-state programs: for the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership program, “only projects in states that voted for Vice President Harris were cancelled on October 2, 2025, while similar projects in states that voted for President Trump were not.”
The city of St. Paul, Minnesota, and environmental groups including Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Plug In America, ElevateEnergy, Southeast Community Organization, and Environmental Defense Fund filed suit. The DOE defended its decision by claiming it advanced Trump administration energy priorities.
However, Mehta found “no plausible rational connection” between the administration’s stated energy goals and selectively canceling blue-state grants. The court emphasized that defendants conceded Plaintiffs’ seven terminated grants are “comparable” to awards to grantees in red states that were not terminated, with the only identifiable difference being “the grant recipient’s state’s political identity.”
The defendants stipulated that “a primary reason for the selection of which DOE grant termination decisions were included in the October 2025 notice tranche was whether the grantee was located in a ‘Blue State.'” The court rejected the DOE’s argument that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to federal funding decisions, stating: “There’s no federal funding exception to the Equal Protection Clause.”
What People Are Saying
Judge Amit P. Mehta said in the ruling: “There is no reason to believe that terminating an award to a recipient located in a state whose citizens tend to vote for Democratic candidates—and, particularly, voted against President Trump—furthers the agency’s energy priorities any more than terminating a similar grant of a recipient in a state whose citizens tend to vote for Republican candidates or voted for President Trump.”
Mehta emphasized the narrowness of his ruling: “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.”
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said October 2025, per NOTUS when asked why affected projects were in states that voted for presidential nominee Kamala Harris, Wright denied targeting Democrats and said: “More project announcements will come,” including in red states.
What Happens Next
The DOE must restore the seven grants specified in the ruling, however the administration could appeal Mehta’s decision to a higher court.
.
President Donald Trump listens as acting director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought speaks during an event at the White House on October 9, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
.
.
Click the link below for the complete article:
.
__________________________________________
Leave a Reply