A federal judge with a history of Democratic activism has dealt another blow to the Trump administration by blocking the EPA from reclaiming billions in Biden-era climate grants.
At a Glance
- U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy ruled that federal agencies cannot freeze grants to further a President’s agenda
- McElroy blocked the EPA from reclaiming $14 billion of the $20 billion in climate grants from the Inflation Reduction Act
- The Trump administration argued the funds were held due to potential waste, fraud, and abuse, but provided no evidence
- Sen. Mike Lee has introduced legislation to limit the power of district court judges over executive branch decisions
- McElroy previously blocked Trump administration attempts to cut state health grants
Judge Unfreezes Billions in Climate Funding
U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy has indefinitely blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from reclaiming billions in Biden-era climate grants, marking another judicial setback for President Trump’s environmental agenda.
The ruling prevents the EPA from suspending or terminating green grant awards distributed under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act while ongoing litigation proceeds. McElroy ordered Citibank, which had received the funds but withheld them at the government’s request, to unfreeze approximately $14 billion of the total $20 billion allocated for climate-friendly projects.
In her ruling, McElroy emphasized that federal agencies do not possess unlimited authority to advance a president’s agenda or indefinitely hinder statutes enacted by Congress. The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act allocated significant funding specifically for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, aimed at promoting energy independence and reducing costs through initiatives ranging from battery factories to electric school buses across the country.
Administration’s Claims Rejected
The Trump administration’s legal team argued they had the right to pause funding to redirect grants to more appropriate projects and claimed the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. The EPA claimed the funds were frozen due to concerns about waste, fraud, and abuse, pointing to a Project Veritas video as justification. However, Judge McElroy noted in her decision that the government failed to provide substantial evidence supporting these allegations, leading to her ruling in favor of the grant recipients.
“Today’s decision gives us a chance to breathe after the EPA unlawfully — and without due process — terminated our awards and blocked access to funds that were appropriated by Congress and legally obligated,” said Climate United Fund CEO Beth Bafford.
The Justice Department’s argument that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case was similarly dismissed by McElroy. Legal experts note that the ruling represents a significant rebuke to executive authority when it contradicts explicit congressional mandates. Beth Bafford, CEO of Climate United, one of the organizations that sued to unfreeze the grants, expressed relief at the decision and criticized the EPA’s actions as unlawful interference with congressionally approved funding.
Judge’s Democratic Ties and Previous Rulings
Judge McElroy’s background includes extensive involvement in Democratic political activism before her appointment to the federal bench. Initially nominated by President Obama and later confirmed under President Trump, she has previously ruled against Trump administration attempts to restrict federal funding in various sectors. In a separate case, she blocked the administration from cutting state health grants, citing “clearly irreparable” harm to states and agencies if the funding were to cease.
“Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a President’s agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration,” ruled McElroy.
McElroy’s consistent opposition to Trump administration attempts to impede federal funds allocated to environmental protection, health, and infrastructure programs has highlighted the ongoing tension between executive authority and judicial oversight. Her rulings assert that statutory requirements must take precedence over unilateral presidential goals, a position that has frustrated administration officials seeking to redirect funding toward priorities aligned with the president’s agenda.
Legislative Response to Judicial Actions
In response to what some Republicans view as judicial overreach, Senator Mike Lee has introduced the Judicial Insurrectionists Act, designed to expedite Supreme Court review of injunctions against the executive branch. The legislation aims to prevent district court judges from overriding presidential orders through nationwide injunctions, which critics argue represents an unconstitutional expansion of the judiciary’s authority over executive functions.
“America’s government cannot function if the legitimate orders of our Commander in Chief can be overridden at the whim of a single district court judge. They have presumed to run the military, the civil service, foreign aid, and HR departments across the Executive Branch—blatantly unconstitutional overreach,” said Sen. Mike Lee in a statement.
The Biden administration has already filed an appeal against Judge McElroy’s decision, with a detailed memorandum forthcoming. The case highlights the growing importance of the judiciary in determining the extent to which a president can redirect or freeze congressionally appropriated funds, an issue likely to remain contentious throughout the remainder of President Trump’s term.
