A federal judge has delivered one of the sharpest legal rebukes yet to President Donald Trump’s use of federal money as a political weapon, ruling that his administration’s decision to cancel clean energy grants in Democratic-leaning states violated the Fifth Amendment. By targeting only jurisdictions that backed Democrats in the 2024 election, the court found, the Trump Department of Energy turned a technical funding program into a vehicle for partisan punishment.
The ruling not only restores billions of dollars in stalled projects, it also draws a bright constitutional line around how far the White House can go when it wants to squeeze its political opponents. I see it as the clearest statement so far that the federal purse cannot be used to reward red states and penalize blue ones simply for how they voted.
The Fifth Amendment ruling that stopped Trump’s blue‑state cuts
At the center of the case is a simple but explosive finding: a US district judge concluded that President Trump’s move to terminate Department of Energy grants only in states that voted for Democrats in 2024 violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component. The court found “no explanation” for why the administration singled out those jurisdictions, which meant the policy looked less like a shift in energy priorities and more like retaliation against political opponents, a conclusion detailed in the judge’s discussion of the Fifth Amendment.
The ruling ordered the Trump administration to restore funding for a wide range of clean energy efforts, including programs focused on grid modernization, energy efficiency and addressing methane emissions that had been cut off in Democratic states. A separate account of the decision notes that a US district judge found that Trump’s action illegally blocked clean energy grants to states that had supported Democrats in the 2024 election, directly clashing with the Constitution’s equal protection requirements and underscoring how the court viewed the targeting of Democrats as constitutionally suspect.
How the Trump DOE tried to cancel blue‑state energy grants
The legal fight grew out of a sweeping effort by the Trump Department of Energy to cancel or freeze hundreds of grants that had already been awarded to states and localities. Reporting on the case describes how the Trump DOE moved to terminate funding for projects in states that had backed his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, in the 2024 election, while leaving similar projects in Republican states untouched, a pattern that prompted the judge to reject the administration’s attempt to defend the Trump DOE cancellations.
In practical terms, that meant clean energy research centers, grid resilience upgrades and emissions reduction projects in Democratic states suddenly faced termination notices, even as comparable work in Republican states continued. One detailed account explains that President Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in Energy Department grants in blue states, with the court finding that the cuts were inconsistent with the administration’s own DOE priorities and therefore could not be justified as a neutral policy shift, a conclusion laid out in the description of how the grant cuts were unlawful.
The $7.6 billion at stake and the projects caught in the crossfire
The scale of the attempted rollback helps explain why the ruling landed with such force. According to one account, a federal judge in WASHINGTON found that the Trump administration acted illegally when it canceled $7.6 billion in clean energy grants, money that had been directed to states that supported Vice President Harris in the 2024 election and then abruptly cut off by Trump.
Those dollars were not abstract line items. They were tied to specific projects, including offshore wind development, grid upgrades and community-level clean energy investments. In one closely watched example, District Judge Amit Mehta allowed an offshore wind farm to keep building after the Trump administration tried to pull its funding, ruling that the same Fifth Amendment concerns applied to that project and emphasizing that the government could not simply yank support from a blue-state development without a lawful basis, a point captured in the account of how the Court let construction continue.
Blue states push back: lawsuits, injunctions and a broader pattern
The Fifth Amendment ruling did not come out of nowhere. It fits into a broader pattern in which Democratic-led states have gone to court to stop President Trump from using federal funds as leverage against his political rivals. Earlier this year, a coalition of Democratic states persuaded a federal judge to block Trump from cutting terrorism prevention funding to their jurisdictions, with the court ordering that the money be restored and the status quo maintained while the case proceeded, as described in the account of how a Judge intervened.
States have also challenged Trump’s attempts to squeeze them on childcare and disaster relief. In one case, a federal judge blocked the administration from freezing childcare subsidies in five Democratic states over what the White House framed as fraud concerns, a move that came after Fox News senior White House correspondent Peter Doocy reported on the creation of a new DOJ anti-fraud initiative that the administration cited as justification for the cuts, as described in the account featuring Fox News. In another, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore disaster money that The Federal Emergency Management Agency had withheld from Democratic states over their “sanctuary” policies, finding that the administration could not condition FEMA aid on immigration enforcement in the way Federal Emergency Management had been directed to do.
What the decision means for federal power and partisan payback
From my perspective, the Fifth Amendment ruling on the energy grants crystallizes a legal trend that has been building across these cases. Judges are increasingly skeptical when President Trump’s administration singles out Democratic jurisdictions for harsher treatment without a clear, policy-based explanation. In the energy case, the court not only vacated the funding termination notices that went out in October, it also underscored that the administration cannot retroactively invent neutral justifications for decisions that, on their face, track partisan lines, a point highlighted in the description of how the court’s order meant that, under the ruling, the court vacated the funding termination notices and restored the affected Under the programs.
The decision also reinforces the idea that Congress, not the White House, controls the basic contours of federal spending, and that presidents cannot unilaterally rewrite those choices to reward friends and punish enemies. A federal court order described by Rachel Frazin explains that the Trump administration was told to reinstate green grants in blue states that had been canceled, while another account notes that a judge rejected the Trump DOE’s attempt to cancel grants in those states, both underscoring that the judiciary is willing to police the line between legitimate policy shifts and unconstitutional retaliation, as seen in the reporting by Rachel Frazin and in the separate account of how a Copy of the ruling described the court’s reasoning.
More from Morning Overview