A federal judge has reversed another DOE grant cancellation
The U.S. Department of Energy is expected to reinstate $82.1 million in clean energy funding for 11 projects after a federal judge vacated the department's grant cancellations. The ruling adds another significant legal setback for the administration's effort to unwind awards originally issued under the Biden administration.
The plaintiffs, led by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, argued that the targeted projects were located in states that voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris. The affected grants were tied to projects in New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Colorado.
What the court decided
According to Utility Dive's report, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on Thursday, calling it a final, appealable judgment. The ruling vacated the cancellations, meaning DOE is expected to restore the funding associated with the 11 grants.
The projects had all been issued through DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which was consolidated last year into the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation. One plaintiff, the New Buildings Institute, had four Oregon grants canceled.
Why this case mattered
The lawsuit did not emerge in isolation. Plaintiffs explicitly pointed to a similar case resolved in January, in which DOE was ordered to reverse $27.6 billion in grant cancellations. In that earlier matter, the department did not contest that a primary reason for the terminations was that recipients were located in states that had voted for Harris.
That earlier settlement gave the current plaintiffs a strong comparative argument. They said the seven DOE awardees in the present case were in the same position as the earlier “Saint Paul” plaintiffs: located in blue states and affected by the same October 2025 wave of grant terminations.
The administration denies politics played a role
During a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on DOE's fiscal year 2027 budget request, Energy Secretary Chris Wright was asked when the department would restore funding to all projects that were allegedly wrongfully terminated. Wright said politics were not involved in the department's review process.
That denial sits at the center of the broader controversy. Critics argue that federal grant review cannot be separated from politics if awards are canceled in patterns aligned with electoral geography. Supporters of the department's review may counter that administrations have discretion to reevaluate inherited spending. The court ruling does not resolve every political argument, but it does impose a legal consequence on the cancellations at issue here.
Why the ruling matters beyond 11 projects
The immediate impact is concrete: 11 clean energy projects should regain access to $82.1 million in federal funding. But the significance is wider. The case reinforces that attempts to rescind already awarded clean energy money can trigger successful legal challenges, especially when plaintiffs can point to patterns that suggest unequal or politically selective treatment.
For grant recipients across the energy sector, that matters because project planning often depends on federal commitments being reliable over long timelines. Sudden reversals can disrupt hiring, procurement, demonstration work, and private co-financing.
Pressure on DOE's grant strategy
The ruling also increases pressure on DOE to justify future cancellations with a clearer administrative record. If the department wants to revisit previous awards, it may need to show that those decisions are grounded in consistent, defensible criteria rather than broad political or ideological priorities.
That requirement becomes more important in an energy landscape where federal grant programs are often designed to catalyze early-stage deployment, commercialization, and efficiency projects that private markets may not fund quickly on their own.
A reminder that energy policy is also procedural policy
Clean energy politics often focus on technologies, emissions, grid buildout, or industrial strategy. But this case is a reminder that process can be just as important. How grants are awarded, reviewed, canceled, and defended in court can shape whether policy survives contact with political turnover.
For now, the legal message is straightforward. The court found for the plaintiffs, the cancellations have been vacated, and the DOE is expected to reinstate the money. In a period of intense contest over federal energy priorities, that is not just a funding decision. It is a signal that the courts remain an active check on how those priorities are carried out.
This article is based on reporting by Utility Dive. Read the original article.
Originally published on utilitydive.com
