Epstein Becker Green Submits Amicus Brief to D.C. Circuit on Federal Court Jurisdiction in Challenge to EPA’s Efforts to Claw Back Grant Funds

On May 14, 2025, Epstein Becker Green (EBG) filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Law Professor Tobias Barrington Wolff (the “Brief”) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a widely watched matter, Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., Case Nos. 25-5122 and 25-5123.

The Brief supports Climate United Fund and eight other entities (collectively, the “Plaintiffs-Appellees”), which were awarded approximately $20 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2024 to finance clean energy technology projects nationwide. The funds were held at Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) under the parties’ respective agreements. In mid-February 2025, the Plaintiffs-Appellees attempted to withdraw grant funds, but Citibank refused to honor their disbursement requests. In March, the EPA and two of its officials (collectively, the “EPA Defendants”) notified the Plaintiffs-Appellees that their grants were being terminated immediately.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the EPA Defendants and Citibank, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order (TRO). The EPA Defendants argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, asserting that under the Tucker Act, only the U.S. Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ claims were contractual in nature. The district court disagreed, stating that the Plaintiffs-Appellees were not challenging a contract between the parties but rather an agency action, and, therefore, the Tucker Act did not deprive it of jurisdiction. After obtaining a partial TRO, the Plaintiffs-Appellees sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, reaffirming its jurisdiction over the case. The EPA Defendants appealed.

The Brief urges the D.C. Circuit to uphold the district court's conclusion that the Tucker Act is not an obstacle to the adjudication of this case or the requested relief. Additionally, the Brief emphasizes a critical principle: entering into a contract with the U.S. government does not strip individuals or organizations of their right to seek relief in a U.S. district court when their constitutional or statutory rights are being violated.

EBG’s involvement with filing the Brief demonstrates the firm’s ability to help clients stand up against unfair government decisions that could have far-reaching legal and regulatory consequences. We are proud to serve as a trusted partner in challenging unreasonable agency actions.

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.