Divided federal appeals court says Trump administration improperly ended billions in clean-energy grant funding

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration was wrong to terminate billions of dollars in federal funds intended to support clean-energy projects, overturning the administration’s decision to end the Biden-era effort that had been set up to award and manage the money. The decision was described in reporting as a win for a coalition of nonprofit groups selected to operate the Biden-era program.

According to the report, the lawsuit centered on the administration’s move to shut down the funding stream and related program activities, and on whether the termination complied with governing legal requirements. The appeals panel concluded that the administration’s termination of the funds was improper, though the reporting does not provide additional details on the circuit, the case name, or the precise reasoning in the court’s opinion.

The clean-energy effort at issue was framed in the reporting as a large-scale initiative designed to boost clean energy through grants. The report characterizes the administration’s termination as ending billions allocated to the program, affecting the nonprofits chosen to carry out program functions during the Biden administration and the processes connected to grant implementation.

The decision comes amid broader federal disputes over how executive agencies administer major climate and energy grant programs, including questions about how administrations transition between policy priorities and how funding decisions are made and justified under administrative law. In this case, the appeals court’s ruling blocks the administration’s termination, at least as to the matters challenged in the litigation, and preserves the nonprofits’ ability to continue pursuing relief.

The ruling was issued by a panel described as divided, meaning at least one judge disagreed with the majority’s disposition. The reporting provided does not specify whether the split was along ideological lines or whether the disagreement concerned procedural issues, the standard of review, or the application of specific statutory provisions.

The next steps depend on how the parties respond to the ruling, including whether further review is sought and how the administration and the affected nonprofit coalition handle program operations while the litigation proceeds.

The practical effect, as described in the report, is that the termination of the clean-energy funding effort has been set aside at the appellate level, requiring the parties to consider how the program’s grant-related work should proceed under the court’s direction.