Filed Date: Aug. 8, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges the termination of over $9 million in federal funding to Washington State by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The first grant was for "Tribal Stewards: Cultivating Tribal Leadership & Equity in Natural Resource Stewardship & Climate Resilience" and was awarded to the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges to train a new generation of tribal leaders and co-stewards in natural resource management and climate resilience." The second grant, titled "Advancing an Equitable Framework for Coastal Resilience in Washington State," was awarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology and aimed to address coastal hazards and reduce environmental and health disparities.
The funding was terminated on May 5, 2025, allegedly in alignment with a series of Trump administration executive orders, including Executive Order 14151, which targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEIA) initiatives and “ideologically motivated” climate change programs; Executive Order 14260, which sought to challenge state and local laws that hindered domestic energy development; and Executive Order 14222, which directed agencies to review and potentially terminate existing grants and contracts as part of broader efforts to reshape federal spending.
On August 8, 2025, the State of Washington filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the DOC and its Secretary, and NOAA and its Acting Administrator. The State brought claims under federal regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Spending Clause, the Separation of Powers, the Appointments Clause, and for ultra vires actions. Represented by the Attorney General and the Attorney General's Environmental Protection Division, the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from implementing, maintaining, or reinstating the terminations. The case has not yet been assigned to a judge.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ reasons for terminating the grants were “spurious and pretextual,” relying on a flawed interpretation of 2 C.F.R. § 200.340 to end funding based on new administration priorities rather than the priorities in place at the time of the award. They argued that the terminations targeted projects inconsistent with the administration’s political agenda rather than those that had failed to meet their original goals, and that the lost funding undermined their efforts to help communities disproportionately affected by climate change enhance their resilience.
The plaintiffs further argued that the defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious and disregarded the requirement that termination conditions be clearly and unambiguously specified in the grant terms. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants failed to consider the serious reliance interests of the State of Washington, colleges, and tribal governments, who had invested time and resources into the projects based on the expectation that the awards would be fully funded. The plaintiffs also claimed that the terminations violated the Spending Clause because they were not given fair notice of the new conditions under which the funding was terminated. They argued that the terminations violated the Separation of Powers by allowing the executive branch to contravene congressional intent and end congressionally approved and funded programs based on new executive preferences. Finally, they claimed Appointments Clause violations, arguing that a non-NOAA employee could not lawfully terminate the awards on NOAA’s behalf.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Victoria Tan (8/13/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71065919/parties/state-of-washington-v-united-states-department-of-commerce/
Pechman, Marsha J. (Washington)
Brown, Leah (Washington)
Range, Ellen E (Washington)
Soden, Caitlin (Washington)
Worthington, John (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71065919/state-of-washington-v-united-states-department-of-commerce/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 11:40 a.m.
State / Territory: Washington
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 8, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
State of Washington
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Commerce (- United States (national) -), Federal
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility 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:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.: