Filed Date: Oct. 6, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case concerns a challenge to the EPA’s termination of the Solar for All program, which could result in one million low-income households across the country losing access to affordable solar power, and hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost.
On October 6, 2025, business owners, labor unions, and nonprofit organizations sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Administrator Lee Zeldin in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, before District Judge Mary S. McElroy and Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan. The suit challenged the defendants’ decision to terminate the Solar for All program, which Congress created and funded to provide low-income households and disadvantaged communities with savings on their electricity bills and affordable energy through rooftop and community solar programs. Although the plaintiffs are not the direct beneficiaries of the program, they each took actions in reliance on the program.
The plaintiffs, represented by the Conservation Law Foundation, Lawyers for Good Government, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and private counsel, brought several claims against the defendants. They claimed the termination of the Solar for All program violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for two reasons. First, plaintiffs claimed defendants acted contrary to the plain language of Section 60002 of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” by applying it retroactively to terminate the program and fully obligated funds. Second, plaintiffs claimed the termination was arbitrary and capricious due to the fact that the defendants’ claims of no longer having the funds or authority to administer the program were false and because they did not engage in reasoned decision-making before they terminated the program. The plaintiffs also claimed that the termination was unconstitutional because it violated the Separation of Powers and the Presentment clauses.
The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs first requested that the Court issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ termination of the Solar for All program was unlawful. Next, they requested that the Court direct the defendants to reinstate the program and enjoin them from de-obligating or otherwise interfering with the availability of the relevant funds.
This case is in the early stages of litigation, and the defendants have not yet filed an answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Claire Pollard (10/7/2025)
Sofia Yoder (11/1/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71560315/parties/rhode-island-afl-cio-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency/
Blanchard, Jillian (Rhode Island)
Crowley, James T. (Rhode Island)
DiBianco, Gary (Rhode Island)
Grillot, Benjamin (Rhode Island)
Carney, Tiffiney (Rhode Island)
Blanchard, Jillian (Rhode Island)
Crowley, James T. (Rhode Island)
Grillot, Benjamin (Rhode Island)
Hubbard, Kevin Love (Rhode Island)
Hunter, Kimberley C. (Rhode Island)
Koehler, Larissa (Rhode Island)
Pierre, Alexandra St. (Rhode Island)
Rangarajan, Banumathi (Rhode Island)
Romero, Amy Retsinas (Rhode Island)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71560315/rhode-island-afl-cio-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency/
Last updated Nov. 19, 2025, 6:32 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 6, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs include business owners and non-profit organizations that made business decisions and incurred expenses in reliance on the Solar for All grant awards. Plaintiffs also include labor unions, who lost Solar for All’s support for the creation of apprenticeship programs and well-paying jobs that would have brought in new members, as well as an individual homeowner who lost the ability to receive nocost access to the reduced energy costs associated with solar energy because of Defendants’ decision to terminate the grant program.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public (for-profit) corporation
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, DC, - United States (national) -), Federal
Lee Zeldin (Washington, DC, - United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Rhode Island 1:25-cv-00510
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Environmental Justice and Resources: