COALITION FOR GREEN CAPITAL v. CITIBANK, N.A.
1:25-cv-00735
| D.D.C. | Mar 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital, and Power Forward Communities were awarded multi-billion dollar EPA grants under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) to finance clean technology projects.
- The grant funds were to be held in accounts at Citibank, pursuant to agreements involving the EPA, Citibank, and the Department of Treasury.
- In early 2025, after a change in EPA leadership, the plaintiffs lost access to grant funds, receiving little communication from Citibank or EPA.
- In March 2025, EPA issued near-identical letters unilaterally terminating all three grants, citing concerns over program integrity, fraud, and conflicting agency priorities, but did not provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to respond or object.
- Plaintiffs sued Citibank and EPA defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief, raising claims under the APA, Due Process Clause, breach of contract, and conversion, and quickly moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to preserve the status quo.
- The court held expedited hearings and, after reviewing the record, found imminent irreparable harm and serious procedural lapses in EPA’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Whether district court properly retains case | EPA’s grant terminations are agency actions, not contract disputes; APA and due process violations alleged | Claims are contractual and should go to Court of Federal Claims | District court has jurisdiction; claims challenge agency actions, not mere contract |
| Mootness: Effect of grant termination on live controversy | Termination does not moot TRO request; live controversy over legality and process remains | TRO moot due to EPA’s termination of the grant | Not moot; live controversy exists over legality of termination and process |
| Procedural legality of termination under APA and grant terms | EPA did not follow statutorily or contractually required procedures, including notice and opportunity to respond | Terminations were lawful, reasonable, and based on concerns about integrity and fraud | EPA probably acted arbitrarily and violated procedure; TRO granted |
| Irreparable harm and equities | Inability to access funds threatens existence of organizations and funded projects; status quo preservation required | No irreparable harm; status quo should be maintained by not disbursing funds | Irreparable harm shown; equities favor plaintiffs and TRO |
Key Cases Cited
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (status quo must be preserved by TRO)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (claims for relief are not monetary damages just because a monetary benefit may result)
- City of Houston v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 24 F.3d 1421 (irretrievable government fund transfers can be irreparable)
- Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (financial harm can be irreparable if it threatens existence of business)
- Decker v. Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr., 568 U.S. 597 (mootness requires that a controversy remain at all stages of litigation)
- Bennett v. Kentucky Dep’t of Educ., 470 U.S. 656 (federal grant programs originate from and are controlled by statute)