Democratic AGs Pursue Novel Dual-Step Litigation Strategy to Recover Grant Funds From Trump
Picture this: A $7 billion lifeline for solar power in low-income homes, snipped by executive fiat, leaving nearly a million households facing steeper energy bills amid soaring demand. Now, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general is striking back with a legal one-two punch, aiming to claw back the cash and halt future federal funding freezes under President Trump’s second term.
In a bold escalation of their courtroom war against the administration, attorneys general from more than 20 blue states and Washington, D.C., unleashed twin lawsuits on October 16, 2025, targeting the cancellation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Solar for All program. The filings, led by California AG Rob Bonta, represent a novel dual-step litigation strategy designed to both enjoin ongoing withholdings and recover already disbursed—or clawed-back—funds, drawing inspiration from a recent U.S. Supreme Court framework outlined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett on state standing in funding disputes.
The Solar for All Showdown: What Happened?
Launched in April 2024 under the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Solar for All allocated $7 billion in competitive grants to expand rooftop solar and battery storage for disadvantaged communities. The program targeted 900,000 low-income and overburdened households nationwide, promising annual savings of over $350 million on energy bills while advancing environmental justice and cutting emissions. States like Arizona snagged $156 million, earmarked for 11,000 households, while the Hopi Tribe secured $25 million for tribal solar projects.
But the Trump administration moved swiftly post-inauguration. In August 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin—former Republican congressman and Trump ally—terminated the program, citing misalignment with the president’s “energy dominance” agenda that prioritizes fossil fuels over renewables. This followed a brief unfreezing of funds earlier in the year, after courts rebuffed initial broad freezes on trillions in grants and loans. Critics slammed the move as an unlawful overreach, violating the Administrative Procedure Act by abruptly reversing congressionally mandated spending without reasoned explanation.
The Dual-Step Playbook: Block and Recover
The strategy’s ingenuity lies in its bifurcation. The first lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks an injunction to reinstate the program and prevent further terminations, arguing the EPA’s action was “arbitrary and capricious.” It invokes Barrett’s concurrence in a prior funding case, which clarified that states have Article III standing to challenge federal spending cuts when they suffer direct fiscal harm—like lost grants for public services.
The second suit, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, pursues monetary damages for funds already withheld or redirected, treating the cancellation as a breach of grant agreements akin to a contract dispute. “This dual approach hedges against jurisdictional pitfalls,” explained legal analyst Elena Maria Satterfield of O’Melveny & Myers, who noted it mirrors tactics used successfully against earlier Trump-era cuts to programs like AmeriCorps. Bonta echoed the sentiment: “The Trump administration cannot bend the rule of law to fund its fossil fuel fantasies at the expense of American families.”
Joining Bonta are AGs from states including Arizona’s Kris Mayes, New York’s Letitia James, and Illinois’ Kwame Raoul—part of the 23 Democratic AGs who have lodged over two dozen suits against Trump policies this year alone, from immigration enforcement to National Guard deployments. Mayes highlighted Arizona’s plight: “Cancellation means a 20% bill spike for 11,000 low-income families—pure economic sabotage.”
Reactions: From Solar Advocates to White House Silence
Public and expert backlash has been swift. Jason Walsh, executive director of the Solar Energy Industries Association, warned that axing the program “will raise energy prices and slow the growth of solar we need to meet record demand.” Environmental groups like the Sierra Club called it “a giveaway to Big Oil,” tying it to broader rollbacks on clean energy. On X, #SaveSolarForAll trended, with users sharing stories of halted community projects in swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The administration offered no immediate comment on the pending litigation, though White House spokesman Harrison Fields previously dismissed similar suits as “toothless stunts by leftist AGs.” Legal scholars are split: Conservative commentator Ed Whelan praised the cuts as “prudent realignment,” while progressive jurist Erwin Chemerinsky decried them as “executive overreach echoing Nixon’s impoundment scandals.”
Ripples Across America: Economy, Environment, and Equity
For U.S. readers, the stakes are tangible. Low-income households—disproportionately in redistricting battlegrounds—face immediate hits: In Arizona alone, 11,000 families could see bills jump 20%, exacerbating inflation woes in a post-pandemic economy. Nationally, the program’s demise stalls 30,000 jobs in solar installation and manufacturing, per industry estimates, while undermining Biden-era climate goals amid record heatwaves.
Politically, it’s fuel for 2026 midterms: Democratic AGs position themselves as fiscal defenders, while Trump touts it as slashing “Green New Deal waste.” Technologically, it signals a pivot from renewables, potentially hiking reliance on volatile fossil imports and delaying grid resilience against extreme weather.
As these cases wind through courts—potentially reaching SCOTUS by summer 2026—the dual-step gambit could set precedent for challenging executive spending vetoes. If successful, it might unlock not just $7 billion, but a blueprint for safeguarding congressional appropriations from unilateral whims. For now, solar dreams hang in judicial balance, a stark reminder that in Trump’s America, green grants are the new front line.
By Sam Michael
Follow and subscribe to us today for push notifications on the latest legal battles and policy showdowns—stay powered up on what matters.