On January 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta issued a ruling declaring that the Trump administration's termination of approximately $8 billion in energy grants violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. The judge found that the Department of Energy's (DOE) actions disproportionately targeted recipients in states that predominantly voted for Democratic candidates in the 2024 election.

The ruling mandates the restoration of seven specific grants totaling $27.6 million, part of a broader cancellation affecting over 200 projects. These cancellations were announced by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought on October 1, 2025, coinciding with the onset of a government shutdown.

Judge Mehta noted that nearly all the affected awardees were located in states that did not support President Donald Trump in the 2024 election. The ruling emphasizes constitutional limits on executive actions that discriminate based on political affiliation, highlighting the need for equitable treatment in federal funding decisions.

The DOE's decision to terminate grants was criticized for creating a pattern of disparate treatment, as similar projects in Republican-leaning states were largely unaffected. For instance, while $460 million in funding for Minnesota transmission lines was canceled, $700 million for comparable projects in Montana remained intact. The court found no valid rationale connecting the administration's energy goals to the selective cancellation of grants based on the political identity of the states.

The lawsuit was initiated by the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, along with several environmental organizations, which argued that the terminations were politically motivated. The DOE defended its actions by claiming alignment with the administration's energy priorities, but the court rejected this defense, stating that the evidence indicated a clear bias against blue states.

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration's efforts to roll back clean energy programs. In a related decision, another federal judge allowed work to resume on a major offshore wind farm project serving Rhode Island and Connecticut, indicating a temporary victory for the clean energy sector amid ongoing efforts to curtail such initiatives.

A spokesperson for the Energy Department expressed disagreement with the judge's ruling, asserting that the review process for the grants was thorough and that the projects did not meet the necessary standards for continued funding. The canceled projects were located in states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, all of which supported Democratic candidates.

The cuts included significant funding for California's hydrogen hub, aimed at advancing hydrogen technology, and a major hydrogen project in the Pacific Northwest. In contrast, projects in Texas and a multi-state initiative in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were not affected. Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, stated that the court's ruling highlighted the administration's vindictive cancellation of clean energy projects in politically opposed states, violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Patton emphasized that the administration's actions imposed significant costs on Americans who depend on clean energy for both economic and health benefits. Anne Evens, CEO of Elevate Energy, noted that the ruling would help maintain affordable clean energy and create jobs, reinforcing the principle that affordable energy should be accessible to all.