(NewsNation) — A federal appeals court Tuesday delivered a victory to the Trump administration in its effort to freeze billions of dollars and cancel contracts for nonprofits to run a “green bank” program to finance climate-friendly projects.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who has criticized the Biden-era program as wasteful and mismanaged, had moved to claw back funding already distributed. A lower court previously ruled the EPA lacked evidence to support its accusation and could not end contracts without proof.
But in a 2-1 decision, the appeals court sided with the EPA, ruling that the nonprofits’ arguments belong in federal claims court, which handles contract disputes, rather than in district court. The decision was written by U.S. Appeals Court Judge Neomi Rao and was supported by Judge Gregory Katsas. Rao and Katsas were both appointed by President Donald Trump.
Where is Trump? Social media speculates on president’s health
Tuesday’s ruling blocks climate groups from regaining immediate access to roughly $16 billion in funds they argue are urgently needed. Instead, organizations like Climate United Fund may now only pursue monetary damages in claims court.
“In sum, district courts have no jurisdiction to hear claims that the federal government terminated a grant agreement arbitrarily or with impunity. Claims of arbitrary grant termination are essentially contractual,” Rao wrote in the opinion.
The lawsuit named the EPA, Zeldin and Citibank, which has been holding the grant money on behalf of the agency. Nonprofits argue the funding freeze has paralyzed their work and jeopardized their basic operations.
RFK Jr. plans to sideline beans in dietary guidelines
Judge Cornelia Pillard, who former President Barack Obama appointed, said in her dissent that the groups provided evidence that the EPA disagreed with the program’s goals and tried to end it while throwing around allegations against the groups that it couldn’t substantiate.
The EPA has damaged the green bank program “without presenting to any court any credible evidence or coherent reason that could justify its interference with plaintiffs’ money and its sabotage of Congress’s law,” Pillard wrote.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
