A federal judge ruled Monday that the Trump administration’s decision to cancel roughly $8 billion in energy-related grants violated the Constitution because the terminations disproportionately targeted recipients in Democratic-leaning states.
In a 17-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta found the Department of Energy’s (DOE) actions unlawful under the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. He ordered the agency to reinstate seven specific grants totaling $27.6 million, part of a much broader cancellation affecting more than 200 projects. The sweep 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 wrote that nearly every affected awardee “(but one) were based in states whose majority of citizens casting votes did not support President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.” The ruling draws a clear constitutional line: federal agencies cannot use grant terminations to discriminate based on a state’s political identity.
What the court found
The DOE moved to terminate the grants after Vought posted on X on October 1 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.
According to NOTUS, the terminations followed a pattern: projects in blue states were cut while similar efforts in red states largely continued. NOTUS reported examples including:
- $460 million canceled for Minnesota transmission lines while $700 million for similar projects in Montana was preserved
- Hawaii wildfire resilience funding cut while $160 million for Georgia Power grid resilience work remained
- Of 17 battery recycling projects, only three were cut—and all were in blue states—while the other 14 in red states or at national labs continued
- In the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership program, only projects in states that voted for Vice President Harris were canceled on October 2, 2025, while comparable projects in states that voted for Trump were not
Recipients first received termination notices without formal DOE letterhead stating the awards were “not consistent with this Administration’s goals, policies and priorities.” About a week later, the same wording was re-sent on official letterhead. The grants funded projects such as electric vehicle development, updated building energy codes, and methane emissions reduction.
Lawsuit and the judge’s reasoning
The city of St. Paul, Minnesota, along with groups including Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Plug In America, ElevateEnergy, Southeast Community Organization, and Environmental Defense Fund, sued. The DOE argued the terminations aligned with the administration’s energy priorities.
Mehta rejected that justification, concluding there was “no plausible rational connection” between those stated priorities and selectively cutting grants concentrated in blue states. The court noted defendants conceded the seven restored grants were “comparable” to awards in red states that were not terminated—leaving “the grant recipient’s state’s political identity” as the only identifiable difference.
The ruling also pointed to a key stipulation by the defendants: “a primary reason” for which terminations were included in the October 2025 tranche was whether the grantee was located in a “Blue State.” Mehta dismissed the argument that equal protection limits don’t apply to federal funding decisions, writing: “There’s no federal funding exception to the Equal Protection Clause.”
What people said
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 also stressed the ruling’s narrow scope, noting that political considerations alone do not automatically violate equal protection.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in October 2025, according to NOTUS, that the administration was not targeting Democrats and claimed additional project announcements would follow, including in red states.
What happens next
The DOE must restore the seven grants covered by Mehta’s order. The administration can appeal the decision to a higher court.
