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 located 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 grants totaling $27.6 million that were swept up in 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.
Why it matters
Mehta wrote 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 outlines constitutional limits on executive-branch actions that treat recipients differently based on a state’s political affiliation.
According to NOTUS, the grant terminations fell heavily on organizations in blue states, while comparable projects in red states largely avoided cancellation—producing a nationwide pattern of disparate treatment.
What to know
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 next 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 letters that did not use formal DOE letterhead, stating the awards were “not consistent with this Administration’s goals, policies and priorities.” A week later, recipients received identical letters on official agency letterhead. The grants supported environmental and energy projects including electric-vehicle development, updated building energy codes, and methane emissions reductions.
NOTUS reported multiple examples of uneven outcomes. The administration, according to the outlet, canceled $460 million for Minnesota transmission lines while preserving $700 million for similar projects in Montana; cut Hawaii wildfire resilience funding while maintaining $160 million for Georgia Power’s grid resilience work; and ended three of 17 battery-recycling projects—all in blue states—while the remaining 14 in red states or at national labs continued. The pattern also extended to multi-state programs. 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 sued. The DOE argued the cancellations aligned with Trump administration energy priorities.
Mehta rejected that justification, finding “no plausible rational connection” between the stated goals and the selective termination of blue-state grants. The court noted that defendants conceded the plaintiffs’ seven terminated grants were “comparable” to awards in red states that were not terminated, with the only identifiable difference being “the grant recipient’s state’s political identity.”
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 also rejected the DOE’s argument that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to federal funding decisions, writing: “There’s no federal funding exception to the Equal Protection Clause.”
Key quotes
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 added that his decision was limited in 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 department was not targeting Democrats when asked why affected projects were in states that voted for presidential nominee Kamala Harris. He said: “More project announcements will come,” including in red states.
What happens next
The DOE must restore the seven grants identified in the ruling. The administration can appeal Mehta’s decision to a higher court.
