Judge overturns DOE clean energy grant cancellations tied to states' votes

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

A federal judge ordered the Department of Energy to restore $82.1 million in clean energy grants it cancelled in October 2025. Judge Amit Mehta ruled the cancellations violated the Constitution's equal protection guarantee, which bars the government from treating similarly situated people differently, because they singled out grantees in states that voted for Kamala Harris.

It's the second time Mehta has struck down the same round of terminations. The rulings open the door for hundreds of other grantees to recover money from the roughly $8 billion DOE cut.

Why it matters

Courts have twice blocked DOE from cancelling clean energy grants because of how a state voted. Roughly $8 billion in cuts could now be unwound.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

$82.1M

Grants restored by October 2026 ruling

Eleven awards across five states, restored by Judge Mehta's judgment.

Grant awards restored

Energy Department awards reinstated by the ruling.

300+

Grants DOE terminated in October 2025

The termination round at issue in both rulings, per DOE's own press release.

$8B

Value of October 2025 terminations

OMB Director Russell Vought called it 'nearly $8 billion' in the post announcing the cuts.

$27.6M

Grants restored in January 2026

Seven awards reinstated in the Saint Paul ruling that set the precedent.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

People Involved

Amit Mehta

U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia

Presiding over the grant termination cases

Russell Vought

Director, Office of Management and Budget

Announced the October 2025 grant cancellations

Organizations Involved

U.S. Department of Energy

Federal agency

Defendant ordered to restore the cancelled grants

The federal agency that awarded the 11 grants and then terminated them in October 2025.

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Professional society

Lead plaintiff in the October 2026 challenge

A professional society for chemical engineers and the lead plaintiff in the challenge that produced the October 2026 ruling.

New Buildings Institute

Nonprofit

Plaintiff that lost four grants

A nonprofit focused on building energy efficiency and the plaintiff that lost the most grants, four in total.

Proton Energy Systems Inc.

Company

Plaintiff that lost a hydrogen grant

A hydrogen electrolysis firm whose cancelled $6.1 million grant targeted lower-cost hydrogen production.

Timeline

October 2025 October 2026

4 events Latest: October 2026

Tap a bar to jump to that date

October 2026
Judge restores $82.1 million in grants
Latest Legal

Mehta enters final judgment for 11 grantees in New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Minnesota and Colorado, calling the terminations discriminatory. The judgment is final and appealable.
October 2026
January 2026
Court blocks first round of terminations
Legal

Judge Mehta rules DOE's cancellation of seven grants worth $27.6 million violated equal protection. DOE had conceded that whether a grantee was in a 'Blue State' drove the selections.
January 12th, 2026
DOE reinstates the Saint Paul grants
Action

The Energy Department restores the seven awards after the January ruling, per court filings.
January 2026
October 2025
DOE cancels more than 300 energy grants
Action

On the day a government shutdown begins, OMB Director Russell Vought announces that nearly $8 billion in clean energy grants are being cancelled. DOE issues termination notices for over 300 awards.
October 1st, 2025

Scenarios

DOE appeals and the D.C. Circuit upholds the ruling

Possible Resolves by Q3 2027

Discussed by: Utility Dive, which noted the judgment is 'final, appealable'

DOE has 60 days from the judgment to file a notice of appeal. Because DOE already admitted in the Saint Paul case that Blue State location drove the October 2025 selections, an appeals court would review that concession on the record. A circuit panel is unlikely to overturn a finding based on the government's own admission.

DOE reinstates the broader cancelled pool

Possible Resolves by Q1 2027

Discussed by: Plaintiffs' filings, which cite the Saint Paul precedent and the admitted Blue State targeting

Facing two adverse rulings on the same termination round, DOE could restore the hundreds of other grants it cancelled rather than litigate them one by one. That would return most of the roughly $8 billion to grantees in the states affected by the October 2025 cuts.

DOE complies with the $82.1 million judgment without appeal

Possible Resolves by Dec 15, 2026

Discussed by: Court watchers tracking whether the administration keeps appealing after the Saint Paul precedent

If DOE declines to appeal, the judgment becomes final and the 11 grantees receive their funding. DOE would still face the larger question of what to do about the remaining terminated grants, but the specific challenge would close.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1972–1974

Nixon impoundment of clean-water funds (1972–1974)

President Richard Nixon refused to spend billions of dollars Congress had appropriated for wastewater treatment and other programs, claiming the authority to withhold the money. Congress responded by passing the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Then

Courts ordered some impounded funds released, and Nixon backed down on portions of the clean-water program.

Now

The 1974 law stripped the president of unilateral impoundment power, requiring congressional approval before appropriated funds can be withheld.

Why this matters now

The dispute is the same mechanism: an executive cutting money Congress directed to specific programs. The difference here is that the grants were already awarded and obligated, not merely appropriated.

2018

City of Chicago v. Sessions (2018)

The Justice Department under Jeff Sessions tried to divert Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds from cities it called 'sanctuary cities' by imposing immigration enforcement conditions. The 7th Circuit blocked the conditions, ruling the department could not add requirements Congress had not authorized.

Then

The Justice Department had to release the funds to Chicago and other cities.

Now

Courts restricted the executive's power to attach political conditions to congressionally created grant programs.

Why this matters now

Same principle: the executive cannot strip congressionally funded grants based on political disagreement with the recipients' jurisdictions. Mehta's rulings extend that logic from added conditions to outright termination.