D.C. Circuit Agrees Trump Can Terminate EPA ‘Climate’ Grants

In a major win for the Trump administration, a D.C. Circuit Court panel lifted an injunction on Tuesday that attempted to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from terminating “climate” grants to several nongovernmental groups.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel agreed that the EPA can move forward with cutting grants totaling $16 billion to five nonprofit organizations “to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Judges Neomi Rao and Greg Katsas sided with the government, while Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented.

The administration announced its plans to end distribution of the funds in March over what the D.C. Circuit panel described as “concerns about conflicts of interest and lack of oversight.” This prompted the intended grant recipients to sue in federal court, which resulted in D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issuing an injunction ordering the administration to continue dispersing the monies.

(Most Americans are likely familiar with Chutkan’s egregious conduct in the Biden administration’s lawfare against then-candidate Donald Trump and Jan. 6-related cases.)

Writing for the majority in Tuesday’s ruling, Rao concluded that Chutkan “abused [her] discretion in issuing the injunction” in the first place. The circuit judge further noted that “while the district court had jurisdiction over the grantees’ constitutional claim, that claim is meritless.”

“The grantees are not likely to succeed on the merits because their claims are essentially contractual, and therefore jurisdiction lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims,” Rao wrote. “Moreover, 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. Accordingly, we vacate the injunction.”

Plaintiffs “are expected to appeal the decision,” according to left-wing Politico.

Tuesday’s ruling appears to fall in line with recent orders issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on grant-related cases.

In Department of Education v. California and National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, the high court issued temporary stays on lower court injunctions attempting to bar the Trump administration from terminating grants distributed by the Education Department and National Institutes of Health, respectively. In both cases, a majority of justices agreed (for now) that the government can move forward with ending the distribution of such funds.

The lower courts’ willingness to rebuke the Supreme Court’s guidance as established in the California case prompted swift backlash from Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. In a concurring opinion in the court’s Aug. 21 NIH order, the Trump appointee noted that while “[l]ower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions … they are never free to defy them.”

“[T]his is now the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to intercede in a case ‘squarely controlled’ by one of its precedents,” Gorsuch wrote. “All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect ‘the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress.’”

Gorsuch was joined in his opinion by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who concurred in part and dissented in part.