Federal judge rules EPA unlawfully rescinded $250 million in solar energy grants to Texas

Federal judges have dealt major blows to the Trump administration's environmental rollbacks, ruling that the EPA unlawfully terminated the $7 billion Solar for All program and clawed back a $250 million solar grant from Harris County, Texas. While the EPA argues that the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandated these cuts, courts ruled the funds were already obligated. Meanwhile, the EPA settled a separate lawsuit by restoring $19 million in research grants to the University of California, even as the White House announces a controversial new round of $810 million in pocket rescissions.

Ruling on Harris County solar grants

• ▪Harris County, Texas, was originally awarded $54 million of the $250 million Texas coalition solar program in 2024 before the EPA rescinded it in August 2025.
• ▪Judge Tanya S. Chutkan vacated the Environmental Protection Agency's termination decision but did not order the agency to restore Harris County's solar grant funds.
• ▪U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled on September 22, 2026, that the Environmental Protection Agency unlawfully rescinded Harris County's $250 million solar energy grant program.

EPA's legal response

• ▪The Environmental Protection Agency failed to convince a federal court on September 22, 2026, that the lawsuit brought by Harris County, Texas, over its $250 million solar grant, belonged in claims court
• ▪The Environmental Protection Agency stated it is reviewing the court decisions regarding the Solar for All program and considering options for appeal.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act defense

• ▪The Environmental Protection Agency argued in court that the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act forced the agency to terminate the $7 billion in Solar for All grant funds
• ▪The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress in 2025, repealed unobligated federal funding aimed at greenhouse gas emissions.

Rhode Island Solar for All ruling

• ▪U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy ruled on September 18, 2026, that the Environmental Protection Agency unlawfully terminated the $7 billion Solar for All program.
• ▪The Rhode Island AFL-CIO won a federal court case on September 18, 2026, to scrap the Environmental Protection Agency's Solar for All cancellation language.

Background on the Solar for All program

• ▪A Florida coalition of nonprofits received $156.1 million from the $7 billion Solar for All program in 2024 to expand solar initiatives for low-income communities
• ▪The Environmental Protection Agency awarded the $7 billion Solar for All grants in 2024, projecting they would save families $350 million annually on electricity bills and support 200,000 jobs
• ▪The Trump administration canceled the $7 billion Solar for All program after President Donald Trump's inauguration in 2025.

Settlement over University of California research grants

• ▪The $19 million University of California grant settlement covers 24 research grants, including projects at UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley, and requires approval from U.S. District Judge Rita Lin
• ▪The Environmental Protection Agency agreed to permanently restore approximately $19 million in University of California research grants under a settlement filed on September 23, 2026.

Proposed pocket rescissions of federal funding

• ▪The Trump administration's proposed $810 million cuts, announced September 25, 2026, include $547 million from the Refugee and Entrant Assistance program and $56 million from Housing Counseling Assistance
• ▪The White House announced plans on September 25, 2026, to cut $810 million in bipartisan, congressionally approved funding using pocket rescissions.
• ▪Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins called the Trump administration's September 25, 2026, $810 million pocket rescissions 'unlawful' and a usurpation of congressional power

Debatable claims

• ▪The EPA's clawback of Solar for All grants violated congressional intent
• ▪The EPA should be legally required to restore Harris County's solar grant funds
• ▪Trump's pocket rescissions are an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional authority