The Daily Populous Thursday March 20th, 2025 evening edition
Authored by ecowatch.com and submitted by rmuktader

Founded in 2005 as an Ohio-based environmental newspaper, EcoWatch is a digital platform dedicated to publishing quality, science-based content on environmental issues, causes, and solutions.

United States District Judge Tonya S. Chutkan on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from halting $14 billion in grants that the Biden administration had awarded to three climate groups.

Judge Chutkan said the government’s “vague and unsubstantiated assertions of fraud are insufficient,” reported The Associated Press.

Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital and Power Forward Communities each received $7 billion, $5 billion and $2 billion, respectively. They were among five other recipients of more than $20 billion from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund — known as the “green bank” — established as part of former President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, The Washington Post reported.

The judge also stopped Citibank — the holder and administrator of the grant funds — from transferring the money to anyone, including the government.

“At this juncture, EPA Defendants have not sufficiently explained why unilaterally terminating Plaintiffs’ grant awards was a rational precursor to reviewing” the green bank program, Chutkan wrote in the 23-page opinion.

The purpose of the green bank is to leverage both public and private monies for investment in clean-energy technologies like solar panels and heat pumps, including through community lenders located in low-income areas, reported Politico.

“We have collectively deployed or invested over $100 billion in community-based housing, health, environmental, and economic development initiatives and created or preserved over 1.4 million affordable housing units,” Power Forward Communities wrote in a work plan submitted to the EPA for its share of the grants.

Prior to freezing the grants, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had accused recipients of fraud, mismanagement and self-dealing.

Before issuing a temporary restraining order on the grant stoppages, Chutkan said the actions by the EPA raised “serious due process concerns.” The judge ordered that the funds be held in the grantees’ Citibank accounts rather than being clawed back or used for another purpose while the case moves forward, but did not release the money.

Chutkan said the EPA was not being forced to “undo” termination of the grants and that the ruling would not make the funds unrecoverable, but its purpose was to ensure the government abided by laws and regulations related to grants, “which serves the public interest.”

“The government can’t just void contracts and void agreements and terminate things without following its own regulation,” the judge had said during an earlier court hearing.

Climate United CEO Beth Bafford said Tuesday’s ruling was “a step in the right direction.”

“In the coming weeks, we will continue working towards a long-term solution that will allow us to invest in projects that deliver energy savings, create jobs, and boost American manufacturing in communities across the country,” Bafford said, as The Associated Press reported.

AdmiralAkbar1 on March 20th, 2025 at 16:18 UTC »

To clarify: this is not a final ruling, but a preliminary injunction. When a law or policy is the subject of a legal battle, the court can rule to temporarily enforce the status quo (e.g., stop a new policy from going into effect, or stop a law from being repealed) until the final ruling is made. It isn't a statement on the merits of the case (beyond "is this blatantly frivolous or not"), the strength of the evidence, the judge's leanings, or what the final ruling would be.

Instead, it is based on whether the plaintiff demonstrates that the law or policy will damage them in a way that can't be easily reversed depending on the case's outcome. For instance, if your local government wants to demolish your house, and you fight it in court, a judge would likely grant you an injunction and suspend the planned demolition date, because the government can't un-demolish your house if you win.

99% of the time you see a headline saying "Judge blocks/upholds government's ability to do [X]," it's about an injunction, not a final ruling. For instance, in the ongoing lawsuit over whether Trump can ban AP from the White House press pool because he doesn't like them, the judge said the ban can still be enforced because AP failed to demonstrate that being banned causes irreparable harm to them, even though case law and prior precedent are in their favor.

OldKermudgeon on March 20th, 2025 at 15:54 UTC »

And Trump's head of EPA will thumb his nose at the judge's order and claw back the grants anyway.

From the "leader" of the party of "law & order", operating the US government like the mafia. (Not to disparage the mafia.)

MsKrueger on March 20th, 2025 at 15:39 UTC »

I'll be excited for these rulings when they actually start being enforced.