Washington v. U.S. Department of Commerce

On January 26, the defendants moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal of the preliminary injunction and requested that the Ninth Circuit vacate the district court’s decision granting the injunction. The defendants said that the State had authorized them to represent that the State consented to dismissal and vacatur. The court granted the motion on January 28.

On January 20, 2026, the State of Washington voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) termination of two awards of funding that the State alleged it was “relying on to help communities disproportionately exposed to the adverse effects of climate change become more resilient.” The federal district court for the Western District of Washington had granted the State’s request for a preliminary injunction barring termination of the awards in October 2025. A spokesperson for the Washington State Attorney General’s Office told <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/2432666/washington-drops-9m-climate-fund-suit-against-noaa">Law360</a> that the State “decided to reevaluate this case in light of the ever-changing legal landscape surrounding funding terminations” and that the State continued to believe the termination of the awards was unlawful and would challenge such unlawful actions “in all available forums.”

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington granted the State of Washington’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring federal defendants from terminating climate resilience funding awarded to the State in 2022 and 2023. The court rejected the federal defendants’ contentions that the suit raised “simply contractual claims disguised as [Administrative Procedure Act (APA )] claims” and that the Court of Federal Claims therefore had exclusive jurisdiction over the suit under the Tucker Act. The court found that the Washington sought to vindicate statutory and constitutional rights, not contractual rights, and that the relief sought—an injunction to obtain access to the funds—“is not properly characterized as money damages.” In addition, the court was persuaded by Washington’s argument that “cooperative agreements” such as those at issue in this case are not enforceable under the Tucker Act because they “do not confer a direct and tangible benefit” to the federal government. The court concluded that recent per curiam decisions by the Supreme Court did not require that the case be filed in the Court of Federal Claims; the court also distinguished recent D.C. Circuit and Fourth Circuit decisions finding that cases challenging termination of grant funds and found that these decisions were at odds with binding Ninth Circuit precedent. Considering the legal standard for granting a preliminary injunction, the court found that Washington was highly likely to succeed on its APA claims that the terminations were arbitrary and capricious and violated Office of Management and Budget regulations and related guidance. In addition, the court found that Washington was likely to succeed in demonstrating that the terminations violated the Spending Clause by imposing conditions well after the awards were granted. The court further found that the record was sufficient to show irreparable harm from the State’s decreased ability to protect overburdened communities and to prepare for the negative effects of climate change. The court wrote that “[t]hese are the kinds of injuries that money cannot necessarily solve, as lost time itself can make future response to climate change yet more difficult.” In addition, the court found that the balance of equities and public interest favored issuance of an injunction, rejecting the defendants’ contention that frustration of the President’s policies or an irreversible payment of funds outweighed countervailing interests. The court imposed a nominal $100 bond.