A federal district court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that the Department of Energy unlawfully terminated a group of environmental project grants, finding the decisions breached the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.
In a memorandum opinion issued on 12 January 2026, Judge Amit P. Mehta concluded that Department of Energy Secretary Christopher Wright and Office of Management and Budget Director Russel Vought based the terminations largely on whether grant recipients were located in states that voted against President Trump in the 2024 election.
The case concerned seven grants awarded to six plaintiffs for projects covering electric vehicle development, building energy code updates and methane emissions monitoring. The court found that all plaintiffs were based in states whose voters supported Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The grants together amounted to $27.6m.
Court findings showed that the Department of Energy terminated 315 awards on 2 October 2025, citing savings of about $7.56bn. Termination letters stated that the projects were “not consistent with this Administration’s goals, policies and priorities”.
The defendants accepted that a primary factor in selecting grants for termination was whether the recipient was located in a so-called blue state. They also acknowledged that the cancelled grants were comparable to awards in Republican-leaning states that were not terminated.
Judge Mehta ruled that using a recipient’s state political alignment as a basis for termination had no rational link to the stated aim of aligning funding with agency priorities. He therefore vacated the October termination notices for the seven grants at issue.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims, finding they lacked standing to assert those rights on behalf of third parties. It also rejected the defendants’ argument that the Tucker Act deprived the court of jurisdiction, holding that district courts may hear constitutional claims even when they arise from contractual relationships with the government.
The parties are expected to file a joint status report on whether the plaintiffs will seek permanent injunctive relief and pursue attorney’s fees.
