EPA ‘Considering’ SCOTUS Appeal In ‘Climate’ Grants Case

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is “considering” whether to ask the Supreme Court to pause a lower court injunction blocking its bid to ax “climate” grants for nongovernmental groups.

In a statement to The Federalist, an EPA representative said that the agency is “reviewing” a Tuesday decision by the en banc D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That 6-4 ruling reinstated an April 2025 injunction by D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan that barred the administration from terminating billions of dollars’ worth of grants given to NGOs pushing to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions.”

Those grants originated in former President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which set aside $27 billion for a “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin moved to cut off $20 billion in awards from that fund for said NGOs in March 2025.

Tuesday’s ruling overrides a prior decision by the appellate court’s three-judge panel, which granted the government’s request to pause Chutkan’s injunction in September 2025. Writing for the 2-1 majority at the time, Judge Neomi Rao concluded that Chutkan “abused [her] discretion in issuing the injunction” in the first place, and that the merits and equities favored the administration.

When asked if the agency plans to appeal Tuesday’s ruling to the Supreme Court, the EPA representative told The Federalist it is “considering next steps.”

In affirming part of Chutkan’s injunction, the en banc D.C. Circuit said that the EPA “likely contravened the IRA’s mandatory appropriation” provision when it attempted to terminate the NGOs’ “grants and to claw back funds already disbursed into Plaintiffs’ bank accounts based solely on a policy disagreement with [the IRA’s] Section 60103.” The majority additionally claimed that the agency “has made no argument or showing that it would not still take those steps if the injunction were lifted.”

Meanwhile, the dissent argued that the plaintiffs “have not demonstrated that a preliminary injunction against effectuating the March 11, 2025, Notices of Termination remains warranted after” the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s (OBBBA) “repeal of Section 60103 of the IRA.”

“Under those judges’ understanding of the repeal, EPA Defendants likely could now take actions to terminate Plaintiffs’ grants without violating Section 60103 of the IRA,” the court’s order reads.

The court remained split on whether the EPA’s “authority to suspend or terminate Plaintiffs’ grants in the future is limited by both the contractual terms and Section 60103 of the IRA, or only by the contractual terms” following the OBBBA’s enactment into law. The court was similarly divided on whether “any of the remaining grounds underlying the grant of preliminary injunctive relief can provide a basis to affirm the preliminary injunction as the case is presented to us.”

An EPA official told The Federalist that the grants were “rightfully” terminated in March 2025 and echoed the dissent’s stance that the OBBB axed the contested IRA provisions. The official further noted that the administration has a “zero tolerance policy” for “waste and abuse,” such as that involving the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.