A recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has significant implications for federal climate grant recipients. The court decided that the Trump administration is not required to restore millions in green grants to cities and nonprofits. This decision follows a lower court ruling which the appeals panel said lacked jurisdiction over the case.
In this ruling, the court referenced two past Supreme Court orders, emphasizing that disputes about canceled grant programs should be handled in the US Court of Federal Claims, not in district courts. This marks a setback for various plaintiffs who aimed to recover funding taken back by the Trump administration.
Judge Allison Jones Rushing noted that the case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revolves more around contracts than it does around issues of separation of powers. The plaintiffs had argued that their rights were violated under the Administrative Procedure Act, but the court found the EPA’s actions within legal boundaries.
The Trump administration has often invoked the Tucker Act, a law from 1887, to shift such disputes to the claims court. This echoes decisions made by the DC Circuit, where similar arguments helped the EPA withhold billions from greenhouse gas reduction projects.
Rushing also pointed out that neither the Inflation Reduction Act nor the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mandates that grants be specifically distributed to the plaintiffs involved. Rather, the statutes only require the government to keep the funds available for obligations.
The EPA is appealing a separate order from a South Carolina District Court, where Judge Richard M. Gergel indicated that the agency likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to show evidence of reviews for individual grant applications. However, the Fourth Circuit panel clarified that halting funding temporarily during review does not equal a complete cancellation of grant programs, countering the plaintiffs’ claims.
This case adds to a growing dialogue on the balance of power in the federal funding process and the government’s obligation to honor grants. With funding for climate initiatives under scrutiny, experts have pointed out that such disputes can hinder progress in combating climate change. Recent surveys show that over 70% of Americans support government investment in green technologies, highlighting the importance of these funds.
While the immediate future for grant recipients remains uncertain, public interest in environmental funding continues to grow. This ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in federal grant management and the ongoing challenges for cities and non-profits working on climate initiatives.
For more details on the case, you can read the ruling here.
Source link
sustainability,injunctions,jurisdiction,environmental remediation
