- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- City of Saint Paul v. Wright
City of Saint Paul v. Wright
City of Saint Paul v. Wright ↗
1:25-cv-03899United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.), United States Federal Courts6 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
04/03/2026
Request for permanent injunctive relief denied.
On April 3, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Columbia denied a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by six awardees and subawardees of environmental project grants from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The court ruled in January 2026 that DOE’s and other federal defendants’ decisions to terminate the grants because the grantees were based in “Blue States” violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantees because the classification “was not rationally related to the asserted legitimate government purpose of ‘administering grant programs consistent with the agency’s priorities.’” The plaintiffs’ grants were among the more than 300 grants DOE terminated in October 2025 after Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought posted on social media that “[n]early $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled.” In its April decision, the court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy standing requirements for a permanent injunction because they did not show they faced an “imminent threat” of future injury. The court noted that the defendants had reinstated the plaintiffs’ grants after the January decision and that the plaintiffs’ assertions regarding the defendants’ actions in similar contexts and ongoing funding reviews did not establish that the plaintiffs themselves “face a concrete threat of imminent injury” by the defendants in this case.
Decision
01/12/2026
Judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs on equal protection claim and First Amendment claim dismissed.
Decision
12/09/2025
Reply filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
Reply
12/04/2025
Memorandum filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
Opposition