A federal judge ruled that the Donald Trump administration violated the Constitution when it terminated billions of dollars in federal energy grants in a way that disproportionately affected Democratic-leaning states.
In a 17-page opinion, Amit P. Mehta found that the U.S. Department of Energy crossed constitutional limits by using political geography as an apparent deciding factor in which projects were cut. He ordered the government to reinstate seven terminated grants worth $27.6 million—part of a broader wave of cancellations affecting more than 200 projects nationwide.
Court finds political discrimination in grant terminations
Mehta concluded that the cancellation of roughly $8 billion in grants violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. He noted 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.” He also emphasized that executive agencies cannot treat grant recipients differently based on a state’s political identity, writing: “There’s no federal funding exception to the Equal Protection Clause.”
How the cancellations unfolded
The terminations followed an announcement by Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, issued on Oct. 1, 2025—the first day of the government shutdown. On X, Vought declared that “nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled,” and listed 16 states, none of which supported Trump in 2024.
The following day, Trump posted on Truth Social that he met with Vought to decide “which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut.” Termination notices initially arrived without DOE letterhead and said the grants were “not consistent with this Administration’s goals, policies and priorities.” A week later, recipients received otherwise identical letters on official letterhead.
Disparities across states
Reporting by NOTUS highlighted uneven outcomes among comparable projects. Minnesota lost $460 million for transmission line work, while Montana retained $700 million for similar projects. Hawaii wildfire-resilience funding was cut, while $160 million for Georgia Power grid-resilience work remained intact.
The opinion also pointed to patterns within specific categories. Of 17 battery-recycling projects, only three were canceled—all in blue states—while the other 14 in red states or national laboratories continued. The same dynamic appeared in multi-state programs: under 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 Trump-voting states were spared.
Judge rejects the administration’s explanation
The lawsuit was filed by the city of St. Paul and several environmental groups. The Department of Energy argued the cancellations reflected the administration’s energy priorities. Mehta rejected that defense, finding “no plausible rational connection” between those priorities and the selective cuts.
The court noted that the government conceded the seven reinstated grants were “comparable” to projects in red states that were allowed to continue—with the only clear distinguishing feature being “the grant recipient’s state’s political identity.” While Mehta described the decision as narrow, he made clear that partisan targeting in federal funding decisions crosses a constitutional line.
