Federal Judge Rules EPA Illegally Terminated 7 Billion Solar for All Program

On Friday, September 18, 2026, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency illegally terminated the $7 billion Solar for All program, which was designed to expand rooftop solar access to more than 900,000 lower-income Americans. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, sitting in Providence, found that the EPA acted contrary to congressional intent and without statutory authority when it clawed back the funds in 2025. She vacated the termination, ordering the agency to restore the obligated grant money.

The program, part of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, often called the green bank, was established by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act under former President Joe Biden. The EPA rescinded the Solar for All funds in August 2025, shortly after President Donald Trump signed a tax and spending law. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had called the Biden-era grant program a 'boondoggle.'

The lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island by the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, the Rhode Island Center for Justice, and Solar United Neighbors. The plaintiffs argued that the program was critical for local workforces and lower-income communities seeking access to clean-energy project funding. Patrick Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, called the decision a big victory for states across the country. He said that if the program gets up and running, thousands and thousands of union jobs will be created across the United States.

The EPA said it is reviewing the decision and considering options for appeal. The ruling comes amid a broader legal battle over the Trump administration's efforts to roll back federal clean-energy and climate programs, including the other $20 billion of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A divided federal appeals court ruled last month that the administration improperly terminated that fund, handing a win to a coalition of nonprofits picked to run the effort.

Key Facts

The Associated Press reported on September 18, 2026 that Judge McElroy wrote that Congress clearly intended the EPA to continue administering the Solar for All grants that were already obligated. She found that the EPA acted contrary to this intent and without any other statutory authority when it terminated the program. She vacated the termination.

Reuters reported on September 18, 2026 that the program was funded through the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act and was intended to expand rooftop and community solar access for lower-income households, with the government estimating it would reach more than 900,000 Americans. The EPA had clawed back the funds in 2025 as part of the Trump administration's broader rollback of federal clean-energy and climate programs.

The Hill reported on September 18, 2026 that Judge McElroy, a Trump appointee, vacated the EPA's move to terminate the Solar for All program and claw back the funding. The program was created to distribute grants to states, territories, tribal governments and nonprofits to expand solar in low-income and disadvantaged communities. It sat within the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund established by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The CT Mirror reported on September 18, 2026 that the EPA rescinded the Solar for All funds in August 2025 after President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending law passed in Congress a month earlier. Administrator Lee Zeldin had called the Biden-era grant program a 'boondoggle.' The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday, according to the CT Mirror.

In May, for the first time, solar supplied more of the nation's electricity than coal. The $7 billion Solar for All program was part of the $27 billion green bank, formally known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, established in the Democratic-backed climate law passed in 2022 under former President Joe Biden. The other $20 billion, also canceled by the Trump administration, was slated for eight community development banks and nonprofit organizations for tens of thousands of projects to combat the effects of climate change, such as residential energy efficiency projects to larger-scale investments such as community cooling.

Analysis

The ruling is a significant legal rebuke to the Trump administration's aggressive efforts to dismantle Biden-era climate programs. Judge McElroy's decision rests on a straightforward reading of congressional intent: once Congress obligated the Solar for All funds, the EPA lacked the authority to unilaterally cancel them. This is not a policy disagreement but a question of statutory interpretation. The court found that the agency overstepped its legal bounds.

What this really means is that the administration's strategy of clawing back appropriated funds through executive action faces a formidable judicial barrier. The EPA's argument that the program was a 'boondoggle' may resonate politically, but it does not satisfy the legal standard for terminating obligated grants. The ruling effectively forces the agency to restart a program it had tried to kill, at least while appeals are pending.

The bigger picture here is that this case is part of a broader pattern. Last month, a divided federal appeals court ruled that the administration improperly terminated the entire Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which includes the other $20 billion. That decision, combined with this one, suggests that courts are increasingly skeptical of the executive branch's attempts to override congressional spending decisions. The legal landscape is shifting against the administration's unilateral rollback.

The ruling also highlights the role of states and labor unions in defending climate programs. The Rhode Island AFL-CIO and its co-plaintiffs framed the case around economic benefits and energy affordability, not just environmental concerns. Their success may encourage similar challenges in other jurisdictions. The attorneys general of more than a dozen states also sued over the canceled solar program funding, though that case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in June and is now on appeal.

Why It Matters

For more than 900,000 lower-income Americans, the ruling means that federal support for rooftop solar and community solar projects could be restored. The program was designed to reduce energy bills, create jobs, and cut climate pollution. Without it, many of those households would have been left out of the clean energy transition. The decision also validates the efforts of local workforces and community organizations that had planned projects around the grants. The grants were intended to flow to states, territories, tribal governments, and nonprofits to expand solar in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

More broadly, the ruling reinforces the principle that Congress, not the executive branch, controls federal spending. It signals that courts will scrutinize attempts to dismantle programs created by prior legislation. This could have implications for other Biden-era climate initiatives targeted by the Trump administration. It also adds momentum to the legal fight over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which supports tens of thousands of projects nationwide.

The EPA's appeal options could prolong uncertainty. If the agency appeals, the case may eventually reach the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority has been skeptical of expansive federal agency authority. However, for now, the termination is vacated, and the money must be restored. The program's future depends on how the appeals process unfolds.

Next Up

The EPA said it is reviewing the decision and considering options for appeal. If it appeals, the case will move to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the separate litigation over the other $20 billion of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund continues, with the plaintiffs having appealed a June dismissal in Washington. The administration's broader rollback of clean-energy programs remains a live legal and political battle.

In the coming months, attention will focus on whether the EPA complies with the ruling and releases the obligated funds. Solar United Neighbors and other plaintiffs will be watching to ensure that the program is restored. The decision could also influence other pending cases challenging the administration's termination of climate-related grants.