Filed Date: March 14, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case, filed on March 14, 2025, is one of several challenging the second Trump administration's authority to suspend or cut congressionally-appropriated federal financial assistance based on whether the spending accords with administration priorities. (To see the Clearinghouse's collection of legal challenges to spending freezes and cuts by the second Trump administration, click here.)
In April 2024, Power Forward Communities (PFC)—the plaintiff and a nonprofit housing, climate, and community investment group—received a $2 billion award under the federal government's National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program to finance clean, affordable family housing in cities, towns, rural areas, and Tribal communities across the country. Citibank, the "financial agent" selected by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to administer NCIF awards, properly released funds to PFC (and its award subrecipients) until February 13, 2025, roughly three weeks after President Trump took office for the second time and issued Executive Order 14154, "Unleashing American Energy."
Then on March 11, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent all NCIF award recipients—including PFC—a purported "Notice of Grant Termination" stating that it was "effective immediately" and relied on alleged "concerns regarding program integrity, the award process, programmatic fraud, waste, and abuse, and misalignment with the Agency’s priorities," without giving examples.
As a result, on March 14, 2025, PFC filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of itself and certain of its award subrecipients. PFC was represented by the law firm Foley Hoag. PFC's lawsuit named Citibank, the EPA, and its agency heads as defendants. The plaintiff challenged the EPA’s freezing of federal funds awarded to it under the NCIF. PFC alleged that the defendants’ freezing of these funds violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because NCIF awards, including PFC’s, may be unilaterally terminated by the government only in limited circumstances, and the March 11 notice satisfied none of them. The plaintiff also alleged violations of the Due Process Clause and the Separation of Powers because the EPA terminated PFC’s award without a lawful basis and in disregard of Congress’ legislative enactments. Finally, PFC brought several contract claims against Citibank for its suspension of accounts containing federal grant funds. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the EPA and Citibank.
On the same day, March 14, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). PFC alleged that the defendants’ actions had caused and continued to cause real and immediate harm, stating:
EPA’s unlawful purported termination of the NCIF program and Citibank’s freezing of PFC’s and its subrecipients’ accounts threaten PFC’s very existence. PFC has no committed source of funding to replace the grant funds, without which it cannot pay its existing employees (let alone hire the additional staff necessary to implement its workplan), pay its critical service providers and contractors, or keep pace with the requirements of its NCIF workplan. Without access to their grant funds, PFC and its subrecipients will be unable to meet their obligations under the NCIF program...
The next day, March 15, District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan was assigned to this case.
The court heard the plaintiff's TRO motion on March 17, 2025. It was granted in part and denied in part, with a written order and opinion following the next day. Judge Chutkan ordered that (1) the EPA and Citibank were enjoined from giving effect to [the March 11 Notice of Grant Termination], pending a determination on the merits; (2) the EPA was enjoined from transmitting or taking action to implement the termination of the plaintiff's grants; and (3) Citibank was enjoined from moving or transferring the plaintiff's grant funds to any party other than the accountholders, absent an order from the district court. Additionally, the court required Citibank to provide an update on its compliance with this order by March 24.
On March 20, 2025, Judge Chutkan ordered that this case be consolidated with Climate United Fund v. Citibank (1:25-cv-00698); Coalition for Green Capital v. Citibank, N.A. (1:25-cv-00735); and California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank v. Citibank (1:25-cv-00820). Climate United Fund was named the lead case and all further filings were directed to be filed there. This Clearinghouse record is closed; see Climate United Fund v. Citibank for further developments.
Summary Authors
Lacie Melasi (3/31/2025)
Climate United Fund v. Citibank, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Coalition for Green Capital v. Citibank, N.A., District of District of Columbia (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741083/parties/power-forward-communities-inc-v-citibank-na/
Chutkan, Tanya Sue (District of Columbia)
Neitzel, Beth C. (District of Columbia)
Allen, Kenneth Winn (District of Columbia)
McElroy, Saunders Lee (District of Columbia)
Sacks, Marcus S (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741083/power-forward-communities-inc-v-citibank-na/
Last updated April 21, 2025, 2:56 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Spending Freezes/Cuts)
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Environmental Protections)
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 14, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Power Forward Communities (PFC), a nonprofit housing, climate, and community investment group.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (- United States (national) -), Federal
Citibank (South Dakota), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: