U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta has determined that the Trump administration's decision to rescind around $8 billion in environmental grant funding was unlawful. The judge stated that the terminated grants predominantly affected recipients in states that did not support President Trump in the 2024 election, thereby violating equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The Department of Energy's funding cuts, announced by Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought during a government shutdown in October, specifically targeted grantees in Democratic-leaning states. In contrast, organizations in Republican-leaning states that received federal funding for similar energy projects, such as grid infrastructure and hydrogen hubs, were largely unaffected.

The city of St. Paul, Minnesota, along with several environmental groups, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Energy regarding the termination of seven grants, which included funding for solar energy initiatives, electric vehicle charging stations, and methane emissions reduction efforts. They argued that the cancellations were politically motivated. Judge Mehta ruled that the Energy Department must reinstate the seven grants mentioned in the lawsuit, totaling $27.6 million, although the ruling did not address the broader scope of over 200 projects that were also canceled.

The Energy Department had previously claimed that the terminations aligned with the administration's energy priorities. However, Judge Mehta found no substantial connection between the cancellations and the stated energy goals, highlighting a pattern of disparate treatment based on political affiliation. He noted that the decision to terminate grants in blue states did not advance the agency's energy priorities any more than similar actions against recipients in red states.

This ruling leaves open the possibility for further scrutiny of politically motivated decisions within federal agencies, indicating that political considerations alone do not justify violations of equal protection rights. The case underscores the implications of political bias in federal funding decisions, particularly concerning environmental initiatives.