Key takeaways
- Local weather United sued the EPA and Citibank for freezing practically $7 billion in funding in direction of decarbonization initiatives.
- The primary go well with of its sort in the course of the second Trump administration, its ruling will set a precedent for any future litigation accusing the federal authorities of illegally withholding funding.
Local weather United, also known as America’s inexperienced financial institution, sued the EPA and Citibank over its congressionally appropriated funds being frozen. It now awaits the court docket’s ruling, which is anticipated to return out on April 15 — a call prone to set an important precedent.
The timeline (to this point)
April 2024: Local weather United is one among three coalitions chosen by President Joe Biden’s EPA to disburse $20 billion to decarbonization initiatives throughout the nation beneath the Greenhouse Fuel Discount Fund (GGRF), established within the Inflation Discount Act.
February 12, 2025: EPA administrator Lee Zeldin releases a social media submit accusing Local weather United of financially mismanaging the funds designated by the GGRF.
February 18: The practically $7 billion in funding — held in accounts at Citibank — is frozen after Zeldin’s accusations.
March 5: Citibank releases its first assertion, to Trellis, saying, “Our position as a monetary agent doesn’t contain any discretion over which organizations obtain grant funds.”
March 8: Local weather United sues each the EPA and Citibank for a short lived restraining order that will power EPA and Citibank to unfreeze the funds.
March 11: After the EPA requests a one-day delay within the listening to, Zeldin proclaims the termination of the GGRF.
March 12: Local weather United, the EPA and Citibank seem earlier than the U.S. District Courtroom for the District of Columbia in response to the lawsuit. Choose Tanya Chutkan questions whether or not “the request for an extra day was made in good religion.” Chutkan additionally seems to query the legitimacy behind the EPA’s causes for freezing the funding, asking its lawyer, “Are you able to proffer any proof that [the grant] was unlawful, or proof of abuse or fraud or bribery — that any of that was improperly or unlawfully achieved, aside from the truth that Mr. Zeldin doesn’t prefer it?”
What the case may imply for the longer term
Citibank and the EPA’s actions in direction of congressionally allotted funding already within the fingers of the grant recipient is a primary; the result will create a precedent for any future lawsuits filed towards the company in connection to beforehand established federal funding applications. Already, the Coalition for Inexperienced Capital (CGC) — one of many different two coalitions awarded cash from the GGRF — has additionally filed a lawsuit towards the EPA and Citibank over the termination of its $5 billion grant.