Summary
E&E News legal analysis of the blue-state energy grant cancellations. Georgetown Law professor calls them flatly “unlawful” under the Impoundment Control Act. Identifies three legal theories for challenge: ICA violation, breach of contract, and illegal political retribution. Energy Secretary Wright defended cuts in CNN interview while contradicting White House press secretary’s “pass the CR” framing.
Key Points
- Georgetown Law Prof. David Super: “This is unlawful”; cites 1975 Supreme Court Train v. City of New York — president must distribute appropriations enacted by Congress
- Super: “Nothing in the statutes appropriating those funds makes having a Republican governor a condition of participation”
- Additional 1991 Gregory v. Ashcroft ruling: federal government may not interfere with states’ internal structures (including choice of governor) without express statutory authority
- UC Berkeley Law Prof. Dan Farber: three potential legal theories — ICA violation, breach of contract, illegal political retribution (“Hard to prove, although sometimes Trump provides ammunition himself”)
- Wright CNN interview: said DOE made the call after monthslong review by 7-8 officials focused on “business conditions”; “All of them have cancellation clauses”
- Wright denied political motivation; said more cuts in red states coming; said funding “will not be restored” after shutdown ends
- New DOT interim rule ending minority/women-owned business set-asides cited as additional basis for cuts
- Minnesota: DOE canceled $464M transmission project; state called it “illegal”
- 8 days of National Nuclear Security Administration funding remaining — nuclear weapons stockpile oversight at risk
Newsletter Angles
- The Train v. City of New York (1975) precedent is important: unanimous Supreme Court ruling that presidents must distribute appropriations. This is exactly the constitutional question at stake, and it’s been settled law for 50 years
- The Wright-Leavitt contradiction (Wright: “nothing to do with the shutdown”; Leavitt same day: “pass the CR and it goes away”) was documented in real time — courts may find this useful in establishing political retribution as the actual motive
Entities Mentioned
- Donald Trump — administration directing the pattern of cuts
- Russell Vought — OMB director who announced the cancellations
Concepts Mentioned
- Regulatory Weaponization — using grant cancellations as political coercion; legal analysis of how this violates ICA
- Impoundment Control Act of 1974 — the legal framework being violated
Quotes
“This is unlawful.” — Georgetown Law Prof. David Super “Hard to prove, although sometimes Trump provides ammunition himself.” — UC Berkeley Prof. Dan Farber
Notes
E&E News. October 3, 2025. Best legal analysis of the energy grant cancellations. Cites specific case law (Train v. City of New York, Gregory v. Ashcroft).