Washington v. U.S. Department of Transportation

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington vacated and set aside federal actions that froze funding for states National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Under IIJA, the Federal Highway Administration first issued guidance in 2022 for states and localities to deploy electric vehicle infrastructure and states submitted State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans describing how they intended to use NEVI Formula Program funds. The court declared that the rescission of the NEVI Formula Program guidance and suspension of state plans in February 2025 exceeded the federal defendants’ statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, and was done without observance of proper procedure in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Because it had ruled for the plaintiff states and plaintiff-intervenor organizations on their APA claims, the court did not consider their constitutional or ultra vires claims. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot because FHWA had issued new NEVI Formula Program guidance in August 2025 and resumed the program. The court found that the “consequences and effects of the funding freeze still linger” and that funds remained at risk of not being disbursed. In addition to vacating and setting aside the federal actions and declaring the federal actions unlawful, the court found that the plaintiff states established entitlement to injunctive relief and that the intervenor organizations established the need for injunctive relief in all NEVI jurisdictions.

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington allowed Sierra Club and six other organizations to intervene on behalf of the plaintiff states challenging the suspension or revocation of federal approvals of State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans and the withholding or withdrawing of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program funds. The court found that four of the organizations could intervene as of right but that all seven organizations qualified for permissive intervention. The court said the organizations had shown that they would bring “a unique perspective and expertise” that would not necessarily duplicate the plaintiff states’ role.

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part 16 states’ motion for a preliminary injunction in their lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration’s actions to suspend or terminate funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s (IIJA’s) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. As threshold matters, the court found that the states’ claims were ripe and that the defendants’ action was reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedural Act. The court then found that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the defendants’ actions exceeded their authority under IIJA, that their action was likely arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law and performed without observance of required procedure, and in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. In addition, the court found that the states demonstrated harms to their EV infrastructure programs and administrative burdens that were not purely economic. The court also found that the balance of equities and public interest favored the states. The court granted the preliminary injunction motion as to all but three of the plaintiffs (Vermont, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia), finding that those plaintiffs had not established irreparable harm such as a delayed or canceled project. The court declined to impose a bond and stayed the injunction until July 1.