Filed Date: Oct. 13, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
In 2022, Congress enacted the Inflation Reduction Act, which, among other things, authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to establish the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (“GGRF”), a “historic $27 billion investment to combat the climate crisis.” From this, EPA created several grant programs, including Solar For All (“SFA”), a $7 billion grant program designed to expand access to affordable, clean energy in low-income communities. One of the 60 awardees of SFA funding was Harris County, Texas, and all of the funds were obligated by mid-August 2024.
Within hours of his inauguration, Trump issued Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy. Section 7 of the Order, titled “Terminating the Green New Deal,” directed agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.” After a failed attempt to discontinue the SFA program that was enjoined by multiple federal district courts, the EPA again announced its decisions to eliminate SFA, citing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”) as its authority to do so.
On October 13, 2025, Harris County brought suit against the EPA, its Administrator, and its Award Official in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They alleged the OBBA provides no authority for the EPA to cut the SFA program because § 60002 of OBBO repealed only “unobligated balances of amounts made available to carry out that section (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act).” Because the SFA funds had been obligated in September 2024, well before OBBBA was enacted, Harris County alleged there is no statutory authority for the EPA to unilaterally rescind the program. Harris County brings suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), alleging the termination of SFA was arbitrary and capricious; the U.S. Constitution, alleging a violation of the Appropriations Clause and Separation of Powers; and claimed the EPA acted ultra vires in violation of its statutory and constitutional authority. The case was assigned to Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan.
In relief, Harris County seeks a declaration that the EPA’s decision to terminate the SFA program violates the APA, federal statutes (§ 60002 of the OBBA and § 134 of the Clean Air Act), and the U.S. Constitution. They also seek vacatur of the unlawful termination decision, and an injunction from its implementation.
On October 24, 2025, Harris County filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. They sought an order enjoining the EPA from “(1) dismantling Solar for All on this erroneous and pretextual basis, and (2) deobligating, expending, or otherwise placing beyond this Court’s jurisdiction any funds obligated to Solar for All pursuant to Congress’s appropriation under Section 134(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
Harris County filed a motion to withdraw its motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on November 14, 2025, in light of representations by the DOJ that all undisbursed SFA grant funds will remain in the Treasury account until September 30, 2031.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Madena Mustafa (11/22/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71630629/parties/harris-county-texas-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency/
Chutkan, Tanya Sue (District of Columbia)
Chen, Kevin (District of Columbia)
Fombonne, Jonathan (District of Columbia)
Nash, Emily J. (District of Columbia)
Neitzel, Beth C. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71630629/harris-county-texas-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency/
Last updated Jan. 17, 2026, 12:47 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 13, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Harris County, TX
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (District of Columbia), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Leave Act, 5 U.S.C. § 6329a
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-03646
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.: