Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Two months after the en banc D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of a preliminary injunction that barred the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from effectuating its March 11, 2025 notice of termination of grants under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the en banc court granted Coalition for Green Capital’s (CGC’s) motion for clarification that an administrative stay of the portion of the injunction requiring the disbursement of funds did not apply to funds withdrawn by CGC prior to entry of the stay.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Two entities that were awarded funding under EPA’s Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program filed lawsuits in federal district court in the District of Columbia challenging EPA and Citibank actions freezing and terminating the funding. The CCIA is one of three programs through which EPA implemented the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Inclusiv, Inc.—a nonprofit certified Community Development Financial Institution that works with credit unions—asserted that EPA’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act because they were contrary to the Inflation Reduction Act, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, and EPA regulations, and were arbitrary and capricious. Inclusiv also asserted that EPA violated separation of powers (the Legislative Vesting, Spending, Appropriations, and Take Care Clauses) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In addition, Inclusiv asserted that EPA’s actions were ultra vires. Against Citibank, Inclusiv asserted breach of contract, conversion, and replevin claims. The other lawsuit was brought by Justice Climate Fund—“a purpose-built, non-profit organization that was founded to apply for CCIA funding on behalf of a consortium of community lender representatives.”

Two entities that were awarded funding under EPA’s Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program filed lawsuits in federal district court in the District of Columbia challenging EPA and Citibank actions freezing and terminating the funding. The CCIA is one of three programs through which EPA implemented the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Justice Climate Fund (JCF)—“a purpose-built, non-profit organization that was founded to apply for CCIA funding on behalf of a consortium of community lender representatives”—asserted that EPA’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the termination of the award was arbitrary and capricious and violated federal grant regulations and the Inflation Reduction Act. JCF asserted that EPA’s actions effectively suspending its award also violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, JCF asserted violations of the Appropriations Clause and Due Process Clause. JCF also asserted breach of contract claims against Citibank. The other lawsuit was filed by Inclusiv, Inc., a nonprofit certified Community Development Financial Institution that works with credit unions.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Four state “green banks” that were subawardees supported by Coalition for Green Capital’s grant under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA Administrator, an EPA Acting Deputy Administrator, and Citibank, N.A. in the federal district court for the District of Columbia on March 19. The lawsuit challenged "EPA's unlawful efforts to impede the flow of billions of dollars in duly appropriated, awarded, and disbursed funds." On March 25, the court consolidated this case with three cases brought by nonprofit financial institutions that also were recipients of funds. The state green banks asserted that the Trump administration’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act because they were contrary to law under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Impoundment Control Act and were ultra vires, were contrary to the Uniform Grant Guidance regulations, and were arbitrary and capricious. In addition, the green banks asserted an equitable ultra vires claim to enjoin the federal agency defendants from taking actions outside their authority. They also asserted separation of powers claims, alleging that the defendants’ conduct usurped legislative functions and violated the Appropriations Clause, Spending Clause, Legislative Vesting Clause, and Take Care Clause. They also alleged that the defendants’ actions to freeze the state green banks’ accounts violated the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Against Citibank they asserted breach of contract, specific performance, conversion, and replevin claims.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Lawsuits challenging EPA's freezing and purported termination of funding under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.