CLIMATE UNITED FUND v. CITIBANK, N.A.
1:25-cv-00698
| D.D.C. | Mar 18, 2025Background
- Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital, and Power Forward Communities (nonprofit financial institutions) were awarded EPA grants under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act to finance clean technology deployment.
- Plaintiffs' grant funds were required by agreement to be held at Citibank under Financial Agency and Account Control Agreements involving the U.S. Treasury and EPA.
- In early 2025, new EPA leadership expressed public skepticism over the grants, then EPA and Citibank halted access to the funds and subsequently issued letters terminating the grants for alleged concerns including fraud, waste, and abuse, and program misalignment.
- Plaintiffs filed suit against Citibank and EPA Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent release or transfer of grant funds and to preserve the status quo.
- The court held hearings and ruled on the TRO, finding Plaintiffs would suffer imminent, irreparable harm without relief due to the inability to meet financial and contractual commitments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Not merely a contract claim; challenges agency action under APA and Due Process. | Exclusive jurisdiction lies in the Court of Federal Claims as a contract case. | Court has jurisdiction: claims are not "at their essence" contractual. |
| Mootness (justiciability) | Case is live: dispute over legality of grant termination remains. | Request for TRO is moot because grants were already terminated. | Case is not moot; controversy over legal rights persists. |
| Likelihood of Success / APA | EPA did not follow required procedures or provide reasoned basis for termination. | Termination reasonable and supported by concerns over fraud/waste. | Plaintiffs likely to succeed: EPA failed to follow required procedures. |
| Irreparable Harm / TRO | Lack of funds will cause loss of operations, jobs, program collapse. | Harm is speculative; preserving funds maintains status quo. | Plaintiffs showed irreparable harm; TRO granted to preserve status quo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (monetary relief not always considered 'money damages')
- Bennett v. Kentucky Dep’t of Educ., 470 U.S. 656 (federal grant programs derive from and are governed by statutes)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (case is moot only if parties lack a legally cognizable interest)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction requires a clear showing of irreparable harm)
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (purpose of TRO is preserving the status quo pending a decision on the merits)