Federal judge sides with Baltimore nonprofit over EPA grant cuts

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of a Baltimore nonprofit in their lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency over the termination of $180 million in grants. 

Green & Healthy Homes Initiative, alongside co-plaintiffs the Minneapolis Foundation and Philanthropy Northwest, were tasked with awarding subgrants to local organizations undertaking environmental projects. 

According to a press release from law firm Brown, Goldstein & Levy, Congress had appropriated funds for the Thriving Communities Program in amendments to the Clean Air Act, as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The three plaintiffs were then chosen as regional “grantmakers.” 

In February, the EPA notified GHHI that one of their two grants were being terminated, citing a shift in agency priorities and noting that the department was moving away from environmental justice initiatives. The second grant was terminated later in the spring. 

Joshua Auerbach, an attorney representing the plaintiff, said this helped GHHI win a favorable ruling. 

“It became clear through the filing of the record that there was this basic hostility to the concept of environmental justice,” Auerbach said. 

The statute explicitly appropriated the funds to be used for environmental justice initiatives. Since Congress had specifically allocated grants for these initiatives, the court agreed that the EPA acted unlawfully outside of its statutory authority.

Auerbach also said that new EPA leadership, likely under the direction of the Department of Government Efficiency, searched through grant databases for those affiliated with environmental justice and terminated them “en masse.” 

Judge Adam B. Abelson wrote in his opinion that federal agencies may not ignore statutory provisions on the basis of a policy disagreement with Congress. The judge also found the terminations to be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, meaning the agency did not provide adequate reasoning for its decision.  

Auerbach characterized the memos sent to the three plaintiffs as vague, which lent itself to the claim of administrative error. In the opinion, the judge notes that the agency used a template form to effectuate the terminations. 

Auerbach also said that these types of cuts can cripple the abilities of grant recipients with little to no explanation. 

“Here there were enormous reliance interests,” he said. “Reliance on commitments the EPA had made for over a year.”  

GHHI focuses investments in rural, tribal, and hard-to-reach communities in the region. The group led efforts in West Virginia to combat lead and other toxins in the soil and addressed water cleanliness in rural areas of Pennsylvania. 

The group’s CEO, Ruth Ann Norton, said they were confident in their legal argument to win back their funding. 

“We would not have taken the steps… if we did not feel that we had an extremely strong case, and if we did not feel that we were doing the right thing as stipulated and awarded by Congress, and the right thing by communities across the country,” she said. 

Norton told The Daily Record that the group expects the funding to become accessible again soon.