Judge rules EPA termination of environmental justice grants was unlawful
The ruling over the Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program comes as EPA is separately appealing a ruling that its termination of $20 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants was also unlawful. Congressional Republicans have proposed rescinding funding for both grant programs as part of their reconciliation bills.
The Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program was part of a $2.8 billion tranche of funding under the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act intended for community groups to provide block grants to address pollution that takes a disproportionately heavy toll on communities of color and low-income and rural areas.
Announced in December 2023, EPA selected 11 groups to disburse the funds to subrecipients, a setup the Biden administration argued would help the groups cut through red tape and access the money more easily.
EPA in February terminated the grants as it sought to end environmental justice work under the Trump administration's move against diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Three of the regional grantmakers sued: the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, which worked in the mid-Atlantic region; the Minneapolis Foundation, operating in the Midwest; and Philanthropy Northwest, which funded programs in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
EPA's termination of these grants violated the Administrative Procedure Act, ruled Judge Adam Abelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
'EPA contends that it has authority to thumb its nose at Congress and refuse to comply with its directives. That constitutes a clear example of an agency acting 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,' and thereby violating the APA,' wrote Abelson, a Biden appointee.
Abelson rejected the argument EPA made in this and similar cases that the grant terminations are effectively contract disputes that must be heard by a special court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Instead, he ruled that EPA's terminations of the grants because the administration opposes environmental justice efforts were unlawful precisely because Congress intended the agency to spend it on environmental justice activities.
'Congress expressly required EPA to use the appropriated funds for 'environmental justice' programs. By terminating Plaintiffs' grants on the basis that current EPA leadership no longer wants to support 'environmental justice' programs, EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act, and therefore was 'in excess of statutory . . . authority, or limitations,'' under the Administrative Procedures Act, Abelson ruled.
Abelson also rejected EPA's argument that the grants were terminated to prevent waste. 'EPA is required to spend the funds that Congress appropriated … and to do so on specified types of projects, and to specifically ensure that such projects benefit disadvantaged communities,' he wrote.
EPA said it is reviewing the decision.
Ruth Ann Norton, CEO of the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, praised the ruling.
'What the EPA does next, we don't know,' she said. 'But we're super happy for communities that are intended to receive these dollars to deal with many things around environmental quality and public health.'
GHHI was prepared to pass through funds to an initial 117 projects across multiple states to address issues like lead contamination in West Virginia, Norton said. 'We hope the EPA doesn't in fact work against its own priorities in a way by wanting to undermine this.'
The other groups that brought suit similarly praised the ruling in statements. Minneapolis Foundation President and CEO R.T. Rybak called it 'a win for local communities' while Philanthropy Northwest CEO Jill Nishi said 'communities most impacted by environmental harm deserve access to the resources committed to them by federal law.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
GOP senator on DC carjacking fears: ‘I don't buckle up'
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) on Wednesday expressed his fear of being carjacked in the nation's capital, as the Trump administration ramps up its federal takeover of local law enforcement. 'And by the way, I'm not joking when I say this, I drive around in Washington, D.C., in my Jeep, and yes, I do drive myself, and I don't buckle up. And the reason why I don't buckle up, and people can say whatever they want to, they can raise their eyebrows at me again, is because of carjacking,' Mullin said during an appearance on Fox News's 'The Ingraham Angle.' 'I don't want to be stuck in my vehicle when I need to exit in a hurry, because I got a seatbelt around me and that — and I wear my seatbelt all the time,' he told host Brian Kilmeade, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. 'But in Washington, D.C., I do not, because it is so prevalent of carjacking,' the Oklahoma Republican continued. 'And I don't want the same thing [to] happen to me what's happened to a lot of people that work on the hill.' President Trump announced earlier this week that his administration was taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and deployed hundreds of National Guard soldiers to the area to combat crime and violence in the city. The move, sparked after a former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer was attacked by teenagers during a carjacking — has received heavy blowback from Democrats and local officials. A provision in Washington's ' Home Rule Act ' allows the president to federalize the police force for up to 30 days — but any additional time requires Congressional approval. During a speech Wednesday from the Kennedy Center, Trump said he will seek a 'long-term' extension. 'Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump said, when asked about whether he's talked to lawmakers about extending the takeover. He added that he expects meet with Congress 'very quickly' and snag GOP support. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) signaled in a post online Wednesday that he and fellow Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) were working with the Trump administration on a safety package for the district. 'Together, we will try to shepherd the DC Security Fund through Congress to give President Trump the resources he will need to improve the safety and quality of life in our nation's capital,' he wrote on social platform X. 'Every American should be behind this effort to make Washington, DC clean and safe so that it can truly become the shining city on the hill.' For such a move to advance, however, it would likely need support from some Senate Democrats. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made clear that his caucus would not back the measure. 'No f‑‑‑ing way,' he told podcast host Aaron Parnas. 'We'll fight him tooth and nail. … He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don't like either.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has also pushed back on Trump's moves, calling them an 'authoritarian push' as data shows the crime rate declining in the nation's capital. The mayor has also used the national attention as a platform to reup the district's quest to gain statehood.
Bloomberg
11 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Crackdown Snares More Migrants With No US Criminal Records
President Donald Trump, who has vowed to target the 'worst of the worst' in his mass deportation campaign, is overseeing a crackdown that's increasingly ensnaring foreigners without US criminal records. About 37% of Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests in July were of people with no US criminal convictions or pending charges, according to federal data compiled by the University of California at Berkeley 's Deportation Data Project and updated this week. That's up from 13% in December, the last full month of Joe Biden's presidency.
New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Federal Deployment Ramps Up in D.C.
President Trump made a show of force in Washington, D.C., this week, exercising his unique powers over the nation's capital to commandeer the city's police force, deploy the National Guard and send hundreds of federal law enforcement agents into the city in what he described as an effort to combat crime. It is the first time a president has used a declared emergency to wrest control of the city's police, a step that its mayor said was 'unsettling' though allowed under the law. Congress and the executive branch have long exerted controls over the city's budget and other decisions. But the president's move may represent the biggest encroachment on the city's autonomy since it was granted home rule 52 years ago. While crime is a concern for many residents, the situation on the ground differs from Mr. Trump's hyperbolic statements in justifying the moves: Official data shows that crime is falling — particularly violent crime, which hit a 30-year low last year — after surging during the pandemic. Mr. Trump, who has stoked fears of violent crimes in America's cities going back more than 35 years, delivered increasingly dire threats after returning to office in January that if he was not satisfied with the city's efforts to combat crime, he would order a federal takeover of Washington — in effect dissolving the local government to rule it directly. Mr. Trump took his first firm steps in that direction last week, after a prominent young administration official was beaten by a mob of young assailants in an attempted carjacking in Washington. Here's what to know. What is Trump doing on law enforcement in Washington? And how is he able to do it? In the span of a week, Mr. Trump rapidly ratcheted up moves going over the heads of D.C. leaders. He has invoked his authority in overseeing federal law enforcement and a 1973 law that gives the president the power to take temporary control of the city's police. He ordered a surge of roughly 500 federal agents into the city beginning last Friday, after the beating of Edward Coristine — an operative of the Department of Government Efficiency — that week. Then on Monday, Mr. Trump used a provision of the D.C. Home Rule Act, the law that established a local government and granted the city limited autonomy, to temporarily take over the Metropolitan Police Department, the city's main police force. A White House official said the current takeover would last 30 days, the maximum outlined in the law before the president must seek an extension of that authority through Congress. Mr. Trump has expressed interest in seeking such an extension. What powers do federal agents have on city patrols? On Tuesday, National Guard troops began to deploy in Washington for the first time since 2020, when Mr. Trump ordered a crackdown on Black Lives Matter protests in the city. Unlike the 50 states, D.C. does not control its National Guard unit and has little ability to push back against a federal deployment, as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California did earlier this year. About a dozen troops were spotted on the National Mall on Tuesday as others gathered at the D.C. Armory, the headquarters of the D.C. National Guard. The initial deployment near the Washington Monument was a far cry from the aggressive policing carried out by the D.C. Guard in 2020. The troops were seen snapping photos of themselves with visitors, and left roughly two hours after they arrived. One complicating factor of using federal agents to patrol Washington is that those agents do not have the same authority as police officers to arrest people for minor criminal offenses. Trump administration officials have suggested that if federal agents see someone commit such a crime, they can stop and detain the person until a local police officer arrives and makes an arrest. City officials have said the National Guard troops would not have the authority to make arrests, as the use of the military for civilian law enforcement is limited by the Constitution. Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington said this week that the president 'has the authority, by virtue of the statute, to request services.' But she said city officials retained the authority to hire and fire people in the Police Department. She added that the police chief would work 'hand in hand with the people that the president has designated.' Could Trump fully take over D.C.? Even before the current crisis, Mr. Trump held a significant amount of control over D.C. The president nominates the city's judges and top prosecutor. Much of the City Council's powers to make laws and plan the annual budget is also subject to congressional oversight. Mr. Trump in effect exercised his presidential powers to set aside some of the city's autonomy, declaring a public safety emergency and temporarily commandeering the city's police force. In theory, Mr. Trump could go further, with the approval of the Republican-controlled Congress. Lawmakers could extend the emergency, keeping the police under Mr. Trump's authority for the duration. Mr. Trump may also be able to keep the National Guard and other federal agents deployed in the city indefinitely. In California, a fraction of the Guard force that Mr. Trump had federalized is still operating under federal control months after being called up. He could also direct federal units to more forcefully police the city, using tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles, low-flying aircraft and other aggressive tools and tactics. The White House had previously said that federal agents in the city would be 'identified, in marked units, and highly visible,' but those restrictions are not mandated by law, and those units could quickly shift to crack down on city residents. The most extreme — and most unlikely — outcome is that Mr. Trump calls on Congress to repeal the D.C. Home Rule Act. That would dissolve the local government and place the city directly under federal control. The city's 700,000 residents — more than the population of Vermont or Wyoming — would lose the ability to elect their mayor and local council members. Mr. Trump has in recent months expressed support for a federal takeover, and Republicans in both the House and the Senate have introduced legislation to do so. But the chances of those laws passing are still very low. Under current Senate rules, such a law would need 60 votes to advance, and there are only 53 Republicans in the Senate. Has something like this happened before? Mr. Trump is the first president to use a declared emergency to wrest control of D.C.'s police. But federal police and the military have previously been deployed in the city, most recently during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. Mr. Trump had also deployed the National Guard to Washington in 2020 as part of a crackdown on racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. The D.C. Guard was at the forefront of that deployment, which was widely seen as a debacle at the time. Mr. Trump had also considered a deployment of active-duty military units like the 82nd Airborne, and senior Army leaders warned National Guard officers that Army units would replace them on the ground if they were insufficiently aggressive in controlling the protests. There have been other encroachments on the city's autonomy during home rule. Before this week, the most significant was a financial control board, established by Congress in 1995 to steer the city out of a fiscal crisis.
