By Trendsetter Tribune 
A federal judge finds Trump administration’s $8B energy grant cancellations unconstitutional for targeting Democratic-leaning states, orders restoration of key awards.
A federal judge on Monday ruled that the Trump administration’s cancellation of approximately $8 billion in energy grants violated the Constitution, finding that recipients in Democratic-leaning states were unfairly targeted.
The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta, orders the Department of Energy (DOE) to restore seven specific grants worth $27.6 million. These grants were part of a broader cancellation affecting more than 200 projects nationwide.
Targeting Blue States: What the Court Found
Judge Mehta’s 17-page opinion highlighted a pattern in which the DOE disproportionately terminated grants awarded to recipients in states that did not support President Trump in the 2024 election. The ruling noted that “all the awardees (but one) were based in states whose majority of citizens casting votes did not support President Trump in 2024,” emphasizing the constitutional limits on politically motivated agency decisions.
The DOE’s terminations, announced by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought on October 1, 2025, affected projects ranging from electric vehicle development to methane emissions reduction.
According to reports, while $460 million for Minnesota transmission lines was cut, $700 million for similar Montana projects continued. Hawaii’s wildfire resilience funding was canceled, yet Georgia Power’s grid resilience work remained funded. Of 17 battery recycling projects, only the three located in blue states were terminated, while the remaining 14 in red states or national labs continued.
Lawsuit Challenges Political Discrimination
The lawsuit was filed by the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, and environmental organizations including the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Plug In America, ElevateEnergy, Southeast Community Organization, and Environmental Defense Fund.
The DOE defended the terminations, claiming alignment with Trump administration energy priorities. However, Judge Mehta found “no plausible rational connection” between these stated goals and the selective cancellation of grants in blue states. He wrote, “There is no reason to believe that terminating an award to a recipient located in a state whose citizens tend to vote for Democratic candidates… furthers the agency’s energy priorities any more than terminating a similar grant of a recipient in a state whose citizens tend to vote for Republican candidates.”
The ruling underscores that federal funding decisions are not exempt from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Political Bias in Funding Decisions
The court emphasized that political identity was a primary factor in selecting which grants were canceled. Mehta noted that defendants themselves acknowledged that a “primary reason for the selection… was whether the grantee was located in a ‘Blue State.’”
Energy Secretary Chris Wright denied targeting Democratic states, stating that “more project announcements will come,” including in red states.
Judge Mehta clarified that the decision is narrow: the court does not rule that any political consideration in agency action violates the Fifth Amendment, only that explicitly discriminatory targeting based on state political affiliation does.
Implications for Federal Funding and Energy Projects
This ruling could have wider implications for federal funding decisions under politically sensitive administrations. It reinforces that agencies must treat grant recipients equally, regardless of state or political leanings, or risk violating constitutional protections.
For recipients of canceled grants, the decision restores a lifeline to critical energy projects that could have otherwise been lost due to political bias. Environmental groups and affected states are likely to continue monitoring DOE decisions closely in the coming months.