A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Trump administration broke the Constitution when it canceled billions of dollars in federal energy grants, mainly affecting states that tend to vote Democratic.
The decision came from U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta, who said the administration acted unlawfully when it shut down roughly $8 billion in Department of Energy grants.
According to the judge, the cuts unfairly targeted projects located almost entirely in states that did not support Donald Trump in the 2024 election. He ruled that this violated the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
As part of his ruling, Judge Mehta ordered the Department of Energy to immediately restore seven specific grants worth about $27.6 million. These grants were part of a much larger group of more than 200 projects that were canceled at the start of the government shutdown on October 1, 2025. The cancellation was announced by Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on that same day.
The judge made it clear that nearly all of the affected grant recipients were based in states where most voters supported Democratic candidates rather than Trump. He said this pattern showed clear political bias and crossed a constitutional line. Similar projects in Republican-leaning states were largely allowed to continue receiving federal money, even when they served the same purpose.
Reports showed several striking examples of this uneven treatment. In Minnesota, hundreds of millions of dollars for transmission line projects were canceled, while similar projects in Montana were left untouched.
Hawaii lost funding meant to help protect against wildfires, but Georgia kept money for power grid improvements. In one case involving battery recycling, only projects in Democratic states were canceled, while nearly identical projects in Republican states continued without interruption.
The administration argued that the grant cancellations were based on policy priorities and energy goals. However, Judge Mehta rejected that explanation, saying there was no logical connection between those goals and the decision to target projects in Democratic states.
He pointed out that the government itself admitted that the canceled grants were comparable to others that were not canceled, with the only real difference being the political makeup of the states involved.
The judge also dismissed the idea that federal funding decisions are exempt from constitutional protections. He stated clearly that there is no special exception that allows the government to ignore equal protection rules simply because money is being distributed or withdrawn.
Several cities and environmental organizations, including the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, filed the lawsuit that led to the ruling. They argued that the administration was punishing states and communities based on how they voted, rather than on the merits of the projects themselves. The court agreed with that argument.
Judge Mehta emphasized that his ruling does not mean political considerations can never play any role in government decisions. Instead, he said the Constitution is violated only when political affiliation becomes the main reason for treating similar groups differently.
The Department of Energy is now required to restore the seven grants named in the ruling, but the Trump administration still has the option to appeal the decision to a higher court.
