A federal judge on Friday overturned the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to shut down its $7 billion Solar for All program, ruling that the agency unlawfully ended grant funding that had already been committed. Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump-appointed judge with the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, wrote that when an agency operates beyond its legal authority, it breaks the Administrative Procedure Act. The decision marks another legal defeat for the Trump administration's push to curtail renewable energy programs.
The Solar for All initiative was part of a nearly $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund established under the Inflation Reduction Act, designed to speed the clean energy transition and boost the economy following the COVID pandemic. The program focused on bringing zero-emission technologies to low-income and disadvantaged communities. The EPA met a September 2024 deadline to obligate all Solar for All funding, with those dollars intended to remain available for five years. Congress repealed the greenhouse gas reduction fund when it passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025. About a month after that legislation passed, the EPA terminated the Solar for All program and its existing grants.
McElroy ruled that contrary to the government's position, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act didn't turn Solar for All funding into "a lump-sum amount subject to EPA's discretion." Instead, she wrote that Congress clearly intended for the EPA to keep administering the already obligated grants. "Defendants acted contrary to this intent, and with no other statutory authority, when they terminated the SFA program," she stated, concluding the termination was "contrary to law and in excess of its statutory authority." Groups that sued the EPA celebrated the outcome, with Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government, noting that "families and communities have seen higher energy bills while billions of dollars intended to lower electricity costs sat out of reach."
The ruling hinges on a fundamental question of administrative law: whether the EPA had the legal power to cancel grants it had already committed. McElroy's decision determined that once the agency obligated the Solar for All funds by the September 2024 deadline, those commitments became binding regardless of Congress's later repeal of the broader greenhouse gas reduction fund. The judge found that both the language of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its legislative history made clear the EPA was required to continue managing the obligated grants. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had claimed on social media the day the agency ended the program that "EPA no longer has the statutory authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive," but the court rejected that interpretation.
The Conservation Law Foundation, Southern Environmental Law Center, Lawyers for Good Government, and Lawyers Committee for Rhode Island filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, Rhode Island Center for Justice, Solar United Neighbors, and other groups. The decision means the $7 billion in funding will be restored and the EPA must resume administering the grants to low-income and disadvantaged communities. The EPA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, leaving open the question of whether the agency will appeal or comply with the order to restart the program.