Earlier this month, Seattle U.S. District Court Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from cutting solar power grant programs during the pendency of the litigation challenging the EPA’s termination of the Solar for All Program.

Back in October 2025, 23 states and state agencies sued the EPA to reinstate $7 billion in Solar for All Funding in State of Arizona, et al. v. EPA, et al. In that case, the plaintiffs accused the EPA of unilaterally and illegally terminating the Solar for All Program, which was a Biden-Era program intended to provide low-income households access to low-cost solar energy. Specifically, the states asserted that the termination of the Program exceeded the EPA’s statutory authority, a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and unconstitutional, as the executive branch lacks authority to terminate a program that Congress funded.

Soon after filing the lawsuit, the coalition of states moved for a preliminary injunction concerning the Solar for All funds, arguing that the states are likely to prevail on their claims and that the EPA lacks legal authority to claim back funds that Congress already obligated. Judge Cartwright ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction noting that the states failed to demonstrate that irreparable harm is likely before a decision is made as to the merits of the case. Judge Cartwright further emphasized that the EPA promised not to repurpose the funds until 2031, which effectively freezes the funds during the pendency of the litigation.

This lawsuit is just one of a number of lawsuits filed by various states and state agencies in response to the termination of the Solar for All Program, which was announced in August 2025 (further detailed here: EPA Facing Lawsuits Over Cuts to Solar Energy Funding after Termination of ‘Solar for All’ – Goldberg Segalla). Interestingly, this coalition is the only group pursuing claims in both the Court of Federal Claims (for alleged breach of contract) and a Federal District Court simultaneously (for the alleged lack of authority/unconstitutionality claims).

It remains to be seen whether any of this litigation will result in judicial relief. Further, it is not clear what impact this litigation will have on individual grant agreements under the Solar for All Program. In the recent Supreme Court decision Apha v. NIH, where federal grantees challenged the termination of public research grants, the Supreme Court emphasized that vacating an agency policy “does not necessarily void decisions made under it.”

Goldberg Segalla’s Environmental Law Monitor will continue to track the litigation surrounding the elimination of the Solar for All Program.