10 hours ago
Judge rules EPA termination of environmental justice grants was unlawful
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that EPA's termination of $600 million in environmental justice grants issued by the Biden administration for low-income areas and communities of color 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.'
