On January 12, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that the Department of Energy violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee when it terminated seven grants using recipients’ location in states whose voters supported Donald Trump as the primary, if not exclusive, selection criterion. The judgment vacated the termination notices for those seven awards; it did not restore all federal energy grants or decide that political considerations are always unconstitutional in grant decisions.
What did the judge decide?
In City of Saint Paul v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-03899 (D.D.C.), Judge Mehta held that the challenged grant terminations violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment constrains the federal government; equal-protection principles apply to federal action through that amendment.
The parties did not dispute that the government drew a line between grantees in blue and red states, or that rational-basis review applied. The court concluded that the government had not shown a rational connection between targeting grantees based on their state’s support for Trump and its stated governmental interest. Mehta wrote: “There is no rational relationship between that classification and Defendants’ stated governmental interest.” Read the court’s opinion.
Why did the selection criterion matter?
The opinion described the case as unusual because the government admitted that it made the termination decisions “primarily—if not exclusively” based on whether an award recipient lived in a state whose citizens voted for Trump in 2024. The court’s reasoning turned on that acknowledged classification and the lack of a rational relationship to the government’s stated interest—not simply on the fact that the decisions involved federal grants.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
- 25 pocket sized copies of the United States Constitution
- Each book measures 3.25" X 6.5"
- Also includes the Bill of Rights, Amendments 11-27, The Declaration of Independence, and a complete index
- Proofed word-for-word against the original Constitution housed in the Archives in Washington, D.C. and identical in spelling, capitalization and punctuation.
The opinion also rejected the idea that discretionary funding is outside constitutional review. It quoted the plaintiffs’ statement at oral argument, “There’s no federal funding exception to the Equal Protection Clause.” That was the plaintiffs’ argument, not a sentence written by the judge.
What does the ruling cover—and what does it not cover?
Seven termination notices
The judgment vacated the October termination notices for seven specified awards. It did not set aside the full nationwide cancellation program or itself restore every grant affected by the broader DOE action. The wider effort was reported as affecting hundreds of clean-energy projects and roughly $7.6 billion in grants across 16 states; those figures describe the broader action, not the seven awards in this case. Associated Press coverage of the broader cancellations; Environmental Defense Fund coverage.
The First Amendment claim
The plaintiffs also raised a First Amendment claim, but the court dismissed it because they had not established standing to assert the generalized rights of residents in affected states. The judgment’s successful claim was the Fifth Amendment equal-protection claim. See the court record on the claims.
No categorical ban on political considerations
Mehta expressly cautioned against reading the opinion as a general prohibition: “By no means does the court conclude that the mere presence of political considerations in an agency action runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. That is not the law.” The court characterized this case as unique because of the government’s admissions and the absence of a rational relationship between the classification and the stated interest. Read the judgment.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rank #3
- Constitution
How does this compare with other grant cases?
Other lawsuits over federal grant terminations involve different plaintiffs, records, claims, and remedies, so their outcomes should not be treated as extensions of this judgment.
| Case | Court and timing | Key distinction |
|---|---|---|
| City of Saint Paul v. Wright | D.D.C.; January 12, 2026 | Final judgment held that the challenged DOE terminations violated Fifth Amendment equal protection and vacated seven notices. Opinion; judgment. |
| American Institute of Chemical Engineers v. Wright | D.D.C.; separate judgment in June 2026 | A different case involving different recipients; an agreement stated that 11 awards were terminated primarily because of recipients’ blue-state location. It was not an appeal from the January ruling. Case coverage. |
| Thakur v. Trump | Northern District of California; separate litigation | Addressed class claims involving other agencies and grant-termination theories. At the stage described in the order, the court found the record insufficient for preliminary equal-protection relief and proceeded toward merits briefing; that was not the final judgment in Wright. Order coverage. |
Is the January judgment in effect now?
The available reporting and court materials establish the January 12, 2026 judgment and its remedy, but do not establish its later appellate or enforcement status. They do not support saying that it was affirmed, stayed, appealed, or fully implemented.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
- Compact Size: Fits easily in your pocket or bag, measuring just 3.5" x 5"
- Comprehensive Content: Includes the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, all Amendments, and The Declaration of Independence
- Durable Paper: Made from high-quality paper for long-lasting use
- Unisex Appeal: Suitable for all ages and genders, perfect for anyone interested in American history
- Constitution Focus: Themed around the U.S. Constitution, ideal for history enthusiasts and students
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
