D.C. Circuit Lifts Injunction on EPA Climate Grants

A panel from the D.C. Circuit Court has lifted an injunction that blocked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from terminating climate-related grants to several nonprofit organizations. The ruling, issued on September 2, 2025, allows the EPA to proceed with cutting approximately $16 billion in funding aimed at promoting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Explainer D.C. Circuit Lifts Injunction on EPA Climate Grants

In a 2-1 decision, Judges Neomi Rao and Greg Katsas sided with the Trump administration, while Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented. The court found that the lower court's injunction, issued by D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, was an overreach. Rao stated, "The district court had jurisdiction over the grantees’ constitutional claim, that claim is meritless."

The Trump administration announced its intention to end the distribution of these grants in March, citing concerns about conflicts of interest and a lack of oversight. This decision led to a lawsuit from the intended grant recipients, prompting Judge Chutkan to order the continuation of funding.

In her majority opinion, Rao emphasized the importance of government oversight in managing such a substantial fund. "The equities strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multi-billion-dollar fund," she wrote.

The ruling aligns with recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding grant-related cases. In similar cases, including Department of Education v. California and National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, the Supreme Court issued stays on lower court injunctions that sought to block the termination of grants by the Trump administration.

Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized lower courts for not adhering to Supreme Court precedents, stating, "Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions … they are never free to defy them." He added that the recent interventions by the Supreme Court were unnecessary and highlighted the need for judges to respect the federal court system's hierarchy.

Critics of the ruling, including some environmental advocates, have expressed concern over the potential impact of cutting these grants on climate initiatives. They argue that the funding is crucial for organizations working to address climate change and promote sustainable practices.

Supporters of the decision, including members of the Trump administration, argue that the cuts are necessary to ensure accountability and proper management of taxpayer funds. They believe that the previous distribution of grants lacked sufficient oversight and that the ruling will help restore fiscal responsibility.

The plaintiffs in the case are expected to appeal the D.C. Circuit's decision, which could prolong the legal battle over the future of these climate grants. The outcome of this case may set a significant precedent for how federal funding is allocated to environmental initiatives in the future.

As the legal proceedings continue, the implications of this ruling will likely resonate across the political spectrum, influencing discussions on environmental policy and federal funding practices.