The dispute involves a Biden-era clean-energy program that was authorized by Congress: the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was designed to spur clean energy investments. The Trump administration, which targeted the program for cancellation after taking office, has argued it could end the contracts governing the nonprofits selected to help run the “green bank.”

During three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, judges of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pressed questions at the core of the legal fight: how and why the contracts were terminated, and what authority the nonprofits had over the money once the government placed it in a financial account for the program. The case comes after a three-judge panel last September agreed the Trump administration had broad power to cancel contracts without facing the kind of claims the nonprofits brought in federal district court, and the full court agreed to rehear the matter.

One area of focus was the government’s explanation for stopping the program. The judges questioned the Trump administration’s allegations of mismanagement and fraud by nonprofits, which federal officials did not substantiate in earlier court filings, according to the questioning described in the appeals hearing record. The argument at the session also centered on whether the justifications for canceling grants had shifted over time.

AP reported that an attorney for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was questioned about what one judge characterized as changing reasons for canceling grants for Climate United Fund and other nonprofits. The questioning described a sequence in which, in February 2025, the government froze the funds without a detailed explanation and alleged waste and fraud, and then later shifted to general concerns about whether there was enough EPA oversight of the program.

In response, Yaakov Roth, an attorney representing the EPA, said, “The way these were structured was fundamentally inappropriate and unacceptable and required doing them over.” Roth argued that the government has wide latitude in contracting decisions and that any accusations that the decisions were improper should be handled in a different court—one that could only provide a financial award to the groups, not restore access to the funds to run the program. He also argued that it did not make sense to side with the nonprofits given that Congress rescinded part of the 2022 law in July that initially established the green bank.

The nonprofits’ attorneys portrayed the freeze and cancellation as unlawful because the money had already been allocated. Climate United Fund and other nonprofits were selected to run the green bank, and the money was formally awarded in August 2024, AP said. According to the reporting, the funds were placed in a Citibank account for the nonprofits’ use as program money, while the administration later moved to freeze those funds and canceled the grants.

Adam Unikowsky, an attorney for Climate United Fund, said at the time that the Congress rescinded critical parts of the law and that the EPA had already acted unlawfully, adding, “Repealing a statute doesn’t retroactively render an illegal action legal.” At Tuesday’s arguments, the judges also questioned whether the money was truly in the nonprofits’ control once it was placed in the Citibank account, and whether the government could freeze it without violating the law.

Judges also weighed the impact of the July congressional action that repealed parts of the 2022 law that authorized the green bank. The nonprofits argued that the congressional change should not undo or shield what they characterized as unlawful conduct when the government froze and then canceled the contracts. The EPA, by contrast, argued that contracting decisions gave the administration latitude and that other courts, not the district court track the nonprofits used, were the proper venue for their claims.

The case has already reached the court of appeals once. In September, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that federal officials have broad latitude to cancel funds appropriated by Congress without facing lawsuits in federal district court. Writing for the majority, Judge Neomi Rao said the dispute should be heard in federal claims court that considers contract disputes, while the dissenting judge, Cornelia Pillard, argued the outcome was a loss not only for the green bank groups but also for Congress’ authority over policy and the “power of the purse,” AP reported.

That ruling overturned an order by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, also reported to be an Obama appointee. Chutkan had said the EPA could not support Zeldin’s accusations of wrongdoing and that the nonprofits should not have their contracts terminated, according to the reporting. AP said Chutkan’s order has been on hold pending the EPA’s appeal, and the full court’s decision to rehear means the arguments heard Tuesday could reshape the legal framework for similar disputes over canceled federal clean-energy financing.

Atomic_claims

  • claim_id: c_001 text: “A federal appeals court grilled both the Trump administration and nonprofits over the termination of their $20 billion ‘green bank’ contracts.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit”, “Trump administration”, “nonprofits”, “$20 billion ‘green bank’ contracts”] predicate: grilled object: value: “grilled both sides over termination of $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund ‘green bank’ contracts” type: legal_proceeding temporal: “2026-02-24” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_002 text: “The judges questioned whether federal officials made up reasons to block the program and whether the nonprofits demanded access to money not technically theirs to control.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“judges”, “federal officials”, “nonprofits”, “green bank program money”] predicate: questioned object: value: “whether the government made shifting/unsupported reasons for blocking the program and whether nonprofits had improper control over funds” type: disputed_issue temporal: “2026-02-24” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_003 text: “The case is before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and follows a three-judge panel decision last September.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit”, “three-judge panel”, “D.C. Circuit”, “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund case”] predicate: follows object: value: “full court agreed to rehear the case after a three-judge panel ruling in September” type: procedural_history temporal: “2026-02-24” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_004 text: “The judges questioned the Trump administration’s allegations of mismanagement and fraud by nonprofits, which federal officials did not substantiate in earlier court filings.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“judges”, “Trump administration”, “nonprofits”, “allegations of mismanagement and fraud”, “earlier court filings”] predicate: questioned object: value: “mismanagement and fraud allegations were questioned and said not substantiated in earlier court filings” type: disputed_allegation temporal: “2026-02-24” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_005 text: “In February 2025, the government froze the funds without detailed explanation and alleged waste and fraud, then later shifted to general concerns about whether there was enough EPA oversight over the program.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“government”, “EPA oversight”, “funds”, “February 2025”] predicate: froze_and_shifted object: value: “freeze in February 2025 with waste/fraud allegations, then later shift to general concerns about EPA oversight” type: timeline temporal: “2025-02” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_006 text: “Yaakov Roth, an attorney for the EPA, said, ‘The way these were structured was fundamentally inappropriate and unacceptable and required doing them over.’” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Yaakov Roth”, “EPA”, “grant contracts structure”] predicate: said object: value: “The way these were structured was fundamentally inappropriate and unacceptable and required doing them over.” type: direct_quote temporal: “2026-02-24” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_007 text: “Roth argued the EPA has wide latitude on contracting decisions and that accusations about improper decisions should be handled in a different court that cannot restore access to funds.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Yaakov Roth”, “EPA”, “contracting decisions”, “different court”, “restore access to funds”] predicate: argued object: value: “EPA wide latitude; improper-decision claims belong elsewhere and cannot restore access to funds” type: legal_argument temporal: “2026-02-24” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_008 text: “Roth argued it did not make much sense to side with the nonprofits after Congress rescinded part of the 2022 law in July.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Yaakov Roth”, “nonprofits”, “Congress”, “July”, “2022 law”] predicate: argued object: value: “July congressional rescission undermines nonprofits’ case” type: legal_argument temporal: “2026-02-24” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_009 text: “Climate United Fund and other nonprofits were among groups tapped to receive $20 billion to finance tens of thousands of projects, and the money was formally awarded in August 2024.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Climate United Fund”, “other nonprofits”, “EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan”, “$20 billion”, “August 2024”] predicate: were_tapped_to_receive object: value: “received $20 billion for clean-energy projects; money formally awarded in August 2024” type: funding_award temporal: “2024-08” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_010 text: “The nonprofits were chosen to run the green bank and billions of dollars were placed in a Citibank account for their use.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Climate United Fund”, “other nonprofits”, “green bank”, “Citibank account”] predicate: placed object: value: “billions placed in a Citibank account for program use” type: financial_arrangement temporal: “2024-08” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_011 text: “EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said he wanted to claw back the funds, alleging potential fraud and conflicts of interest.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Lee Zeldin”, “EPA”, “claw back funds”, “potential fraud”, “conflicts of interest”] predicate: said object: value: “wanted to claw back funds, alleging potential fraud and conflicts of interest” type: attributed_statement temporal: “2025-01” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_012 text: “Adam Unikowsky, an attorney for Climate United Fund, said, ‘Repealing a statute doesn’t retroactively render an illegal action legal.’” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Adam Unikowsky”, “Climate United Fund”, “repealing a statute”, “illegal action”] predicate: said object: value: “Repealing a statute doesn’t retroactively render an illegal action legal.” type: direct_quote temporal: “2025-09” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_013 text: “In September, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that federal officials have broad latitude to cancel funds appropriated by Congress without facing lawsuits in federal district court.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“three-judge panel”, “D.C. Circuit”, “federal officials”, “funds appropriated by Congress”, “federal district court”] predicate: ruled object: value: “2-1: broad latitude to cancel congressionally appropriated funds without district-court lawsuits” type: judicial_ruling temporal: “2025-09” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_014 text: “Judge Neomi Rao wrote for the majority that the dispute should be heard in federal claims court that considers contract disputes.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Judge Neomi Rao”, “majority”, “dispute”, “federal claims court”, “contract disputes”] predicate: wrote object: value: “majority: dispute should be heard in federal claims court for contract disputes” type: judicial_reasoning temporal: “2025-09” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_015 text: “Dissenting Judge Cornelia Pillard said the outcome was a loss for the green bank groups and for Congress’ authority to write policy and maintain the power of the purse.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Cornelia Pillard”, “green bank groups”, “Congress’ authority”, “power of the purse”] predicate: said object: value: “dissent: outcome harms green bank groups and Congress’ policy and purse authority” type: judicial_dissent temporal: “2025-09” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_016 text: “The three-judge panel overturned U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s order that said the EPA couldn’t support Zeldin’s wrongdoing accusations and that the nonprofits should not have their contracts terminated.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Tanya Chutkan”, “EPA”, “Lee Zeldin”, “nonprofits”, “contracts terminated”] predicate: overturned object: value: “panel overturned Chutkan’s order barring termination based on Zeldin wrongdoing accusations” type: judicial_history temporal: “2025-09” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source
  • claim_id: c_017 text: “Chutkan’s order has been on hold pending the EPA’s appeal.” claim_type: reported_claim subject_entities: [“Tanya Chutkan’s order”, “EPA’s appeal”] predicate: has_been_on_hold object: value: “order held pending appeal” type: procedural_status temporal: “2026-02-24” source_ids: [“src_001”] hedge: reported corroboration_level: single_source