A federal judge ruled Monday that the Trump administration’s cancellation of roughly $8 billion in energy grants violated the Constitution, finding the cuts were aimed largely at recipients located in Democratic-leaning states.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta issued a 17-page opinion concluding the Department of Energy’s (DOE) terminations ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. The ruling orders the agency to reinstate seven specific grants totaling $27.6 million, part of a broader rollback affecting more than 200 projects that was announced by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought on October 1, 2025—the first day of the government shutdown.
Why It Matters
Mehta found 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 decision underscores limits on executive-branch actions that treat states differently based on political affiliation.
According to NOTUS, the DOE’s approach disproportionately hit grant recipients in blue states, while organizations in red states pursuing similar federally funded work largely avoided termination—creating a nationwide pattern of unequal treatment across hundreds of projects.
What To Know
Vought said in an October 1 post on X 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 following day, Trump wrote 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.
Recipients initially received termination notices that were not on formal DOE letterhead, informing them their awards were “not consistent with this Administration’s goals, policies and priorities.” A week later, the agency sent identical letters on official letterhead.
The canceled grants supported environmental and energy 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. NOTUS also reported that among 17 battery-recycling projects, only three were cut—and all were in blue states—while the remaining 14 projects in red states or at national labs continued. The pattern extended to multi-state efforts as well: for the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership program, NOTUS reported that “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 argued the cuts aligned with the Trump administration’s energy priorities.
Mehta rejected that rationale, writing that there was “no plausible rational connection” between the administration’s stated goals and selectively canceling grants in blue states. The court noted defendants conceded the seven terminated grants were “comparable” to awards in red states that were not terminated—leaving “the grant recipient’s state’s political identity” as the key distinguishing factor.
The defendants also 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.’” Mehta dismissed the DOE’s claim that equal protection constraints don’t apply to federal grant decisions, stating: “There’s no federal funding exception to the Equal Protection Clause.”
What People Are Saying
Mehta wrote: “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.”
He stressed the ruling’s limited scope: “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 in October 2025, per NOTUS, that the administration was not targeting Democrats. Asked why affected projects were located in states that supported presidential nominee Kamala Harris, Wright replied: “More project announcements will come,” including in red states.
What Happens Next
The DOE must restore the seven grants named in the ruling. The administration, however, could appeal Mehta’s decision to a higher court.
