In a decisive legal blow to the Trump administration’s rollback of environmental programs, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel ruled Monday that $176 million in federal grant funding must be restored to 13 nonprofit organizations and six municipalities. The grants, which had been frozen earlier this year under executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, were originally awarded through landmark legislation including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
The ruling is one of the first final judgments challenging the administration’s sweeping efforts to halt climate and equity-related initiatives by targeting federal agencies and revoking congressional appropriations. The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and the Public Rights Project on behalf of affected organizations and communities stretching from Baltimore to San Diego.
“This is a huge victory for these organizations who can now get back to work improving their communities,” said Kym Meyer, litigation director at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “While defendants have announced their intent to appeal this ruling, SELC’s team is energized and ready to continue this fight all the way to the Supreme Court until all the grants represented in our case are restored once and for all.”
The grants had supported a wide range of environmental and community programs, from public health initiatives and housing projects to clean energy investments and support for farmers. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit reported that the funding freeze had forced them to furlough staff and suspend operations critical to local well-being.
“Continued freezes and disruptions to our work would be catastrophic and equivalent to the government turning its back on the housing, jobs, and other economic, environmental, and social impacts that are set to be delivered,” said Bryan Cordell, executive director of the Sustainability Institute in North Charleston, South Carolina.
The Trump administration halted the grants through a series of executive orders including “Unleashing American Energy,” “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative.” These actions, the plaintiffs alleged, amounted to “unlawful interference by the executive branch” and a violation of the First Amendment, which protects free speech.
In court filings, the administration ultimately conceded to the plaintiffs’ claims on 32 of the 38 contested grants, a move that preceded Judge Gergel’s announcement that he would enter a final judgment ordering the restoration of those funds. The ruling was issued following a hearing in Charleston, South Carolina.
The grants in question were awarded under the IRA and IIJA, two major legislative achievements of the Biden administration that allocated billions of dollars toward environmental resilience, clean infrastructure, and climate-smart agriculture. The remaining six grants—funded through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Climate-Smart Commodities program—were not reinstated in this ruling, having been terminated in April amid administration claims of “inefficient spending” and misalignment with policy priorities.
Nonetheless, the SELC vowed to continue pressing the case. The court signaled it would consider the legality of those grant cancellations after further testimony is presented.
The lawsuit named several Trump administration departments and officials as defendants, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, and the Department of Government Efficiency, which was established under Trump’s direction to cut spending across federal programs. The EPA and USDA declined to comment on the pending litigation, while other departments did not immediately respond to media inquiries.
Judge Gergel’s ruling underscored the limits of executive authority and reinforced the constitutional role of Congress in allocating public funds. “A ruling that reaffirms that the executive branch doesn’t have the authority to disregard Congress,” said Meyer.
The case also sets a potential precedent for future conflicts between Congress and the executive branch over funding decisions and policy implementation. As legal challenges to the administration’s broader deregulatory agenda continue to unfold, the outcome of this case may serve as a benchmark in defining the balance of power between branches of government.
The Trump administration indicated it plans to appeal the ruling on jurisdictional grounds, signaling a likely escalation to higher courts. In the meantime, affected organizations across the country may now begin the process of resuming programs critical to environmental justice, climate action, and community resilience.
“This is a huge victory for us today,” Meyer said. “A ruling that reaffirms that the executive branch doesn’t have the authority to disregard Congress.”
COMMENTS