California v. Wright

Thirteen states filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Secretary of Energy, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and OMB took unlawful actions to eliminate energy and infrastructure programs and projects established and funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and other laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump administration utilized executive actions as a “back-up plan” to eliminate the energy and infrastructure programs and to terminate and abandon the plaintiffs’ awards under these programs after the administration failed to convince Congress to rescind previously obligated funds. The complaint alleged that those executive actions included a May 2025 Department of Energy memorandum (DOE Memo) setting forth DOE’s process for evaluating “financial assistance on a case-by-case basis to identify waste of taxpayer dollars, protect America’s national security and advance President Trump’s commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy for the American people.” The plaintiffs contended that DOE used the DOE Memo “as the pretext for terminating and abandoning Plaintiffs’ awards, thus advancing President Trump’s directives to eliminate clean-energy and infrastructure programs and place coercive pressure on Blue States.” The complaint alleged that the defendants’ actions harmed the plaintiffs, including by depriving them of funds to undertake projects to meet state climate goals. The complaint asserted that the defendants’ actions violated separation of powers; were contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious and in violation of procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act; and constituted ultra vires executive action. The complaint also asserted First Amendment and equal protection claims on behalf of a California limited liability company that was an awardee under a cooperative agreement. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief, including injunctions requiring DOE to cease any pending review pursuant to the DOE Memo, undoing termination or abandonment of any of the awards at issue in this case, and barring future action based on the DOE Memo. They also asked the court to vacate the DOE Memo.