The Sustainability Institute v. Trump
2:25-cv-02152
D.S.C.Apr 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are organizations whose federal grants, awarded under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), were frozen by executive branch agencies.
- Plaintiffs allege the freeze was done summarily and categorically, not based on individual review of specific grant conditions.
- Plaintiffs claim the freeze was unlawful and exceeded agency authority under the Constitution and authorizing statutes (IRA/IIJA), and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- Defendants contend the federal district court lacks jurisdiction (arguing exclusive Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims and nonreviewability as agency discretion).
- The Court addressed these threshold jurisdictional issues and issues regarding supplementation and organization of the administrative record for this ongoing litigation.
- Recent developments include partial unfreezing and termination of certain grants, prompting ongoing discovery requests and orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Tucker Act vs. APA) | Claims arise under federal law and statutes, seek equitable relief—not contract enforcement or damages. | Claims arise from grant agreements; proper forum is Court of Federal Claims under Tucker Act. | Court finds claims grounded in federal law/statute and equitable in nature, not contracts; jurisdiction proper under APA. |
| Agency Discretion Exception under APA | Agency action here is not committed to unreviewable discretion; statutes provide judicial standards. | Agency funding decisions are committed to discretion by law and nonreviewable. | Court finds no evidence Congress intended such discretion; APA review available. |
| Relief Sought: Money Damages or Equitable Relief | Seek declaratory/injunctive relief to restore funding, not just compensation for past losses. | Any order would require paying out specific sums—equivalent to money damages. | Relief sought is prospective and equitable (process-based), not money damages; fits APA jurisdiction. |
| Impact of Sup. Ct. Stay in Dept. of Educ. v. California | Emergency stay order in another case not controlling—different facts, posture, and merits. | Supreme Court’s recent stay proves district court lacks jurisdiction here. | Court distinguishes stay order; relies on fully-briefed precedent (Bowen) for guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity requires waiver by the U.S. before suit)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (suits against the U.S. require explicit consent)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (distinguishes between money damages and specific equitable relief in APA actions)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (agency action is only unreviewable under the APA when committed to agency discretion by law)
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (deference where Congress grants agency discretion via lump sum appropriations)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (presumption of judicial review under the APA)