Washington v. U.S. Department of Commerce

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.

The State of Washington filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington 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.” One award was for $250,000 under the Coastal Zone Management Act for a proposal titled “Advancing an Equitable Framework for Coastal Resilience in Washington State.” The other award was for $9,257,231 under the Inflation Reduction Act and National Sea Grant College Act for a proposal titled “Tribal Stewards: Cultivating Tribal Leadership and Equity in Natural Resource Stewardship & Climate Resilience.” The State asserted that the terminations of the awards violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the terminations were not in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Guidance for administration of awards and were done without observance of procedures required by law. The State also asserted that termination of the awards was arbitrary and capricious, that the terminations violated the Appointments Clause because neither a NOAA nor a Department of Commerce employee determined the awards should be terminated, and that they violated the Spending Clause and separation of powers doctrine. Washington also asserted an equitable ultra vires claim.