“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump DC Circuit judge Neomi Rao, joined by Trump judge Greg Katsas, issued a 2-1 decision that reversed a lower court injuction and authorized the Trump EPA to terminate $16 billion in grants to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Obama nominee Cornelia Pillard strongly dissented from the September 2025 decision in Climate United Fund v Citibank N.A.
What happened in this case?
In 2022-24, Congress passed and the EPA began to implement a program to provide grants around the country to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in new construction. Pursuant to a directive from President Trump to stop the “green new deal,” Trump’s EPA sought to freeze or take back such funding.
After the Administration refused to take action, five nonprofits that had received grants worth $16 billion filed a federal lawsuit. After discovery and court proceedings , a federal court issued a preliminary injunction directing that the government resume the funding. The Trump DOJ appealed to the DC Circuit.
How did Trump judges Rao and Katsas rule and why is the result harmful?
Trump judges Rao and Katsas issued a 2-1 decision that reversed the district court. They claimed that the EPA had the authority to take the action it did in the name of “proper oversight and management” of the “multi-billion-dollar fund” at issue.
Obama nominee Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote a strong dissent, which was more than twice as long as the majority opinion. Pillard carefully traced the history of the legislation and its efforts to combat the greenhouse gas problem, including the “enormous harm” likely to result if the projects were stopped. She carefully explained how the Administration’s conduct was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act and how it violated the separation of powers. As she concluded, the majority opinion “allows the government to seize Plaintiffs’ money” based on “spurious and pretextual allegations”, and to “permanently gut implementation of major congressional legislation” aimed at improving the “infrastructure, health and economic security of communities “throughout the country.”
More proceedings are expected in this case, either in the DC Circuit or the Supreme Court or both. As of now, the results of the Trump judges’ decision can ony harm the rule of law and damage the health and economy of “communities throughout the country.” In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.