{"id":29402,"date":"2026-07-30T07:21:21","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T12:21:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=29402"},"modified":"2026-07-30T07:21:21","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T12:21:21","slug":"reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/","title":{"rendered":"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">Under the second Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has radically altered its priorities. Whereas it previously championed climate spending legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), its new leadership, headed by Administrator Lee Zeldin, promptly moved to roll back implementation of IRA programs. Indeed, as part of those efforts, EPA <a href=\"https:\/\/www.esgdive.com\/news\/epa-funding-freeze-ggrf-green-bank-renewable-energy-trump-zeldin\/741539\/\">froze the funds<\/a> of grantees of programs created by the IRA and other climate-related legislation (e.g., the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or BIL) and later cancelled many grants altogether.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">The subsequent litigation challenging the cancellation of federal funding has raised numerous and novel legal issues, but perhaps none has received more attention than the <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/10\/30\/court-of-federal-claims-jurisdiction-remedies-and-unsuitability-to-adjudicate-the-ggrf-lawsuit\/\">issue of forum<\/a>. One of the main arguments that the federal government is advancing throughout the federal funding litigation is that the plaintiffs, often the prime grantees of federal grants, brought their Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims in the wrong court. Instead of filing in federal district court, where judges can provide broad types of relief, the federal government has argued that the plaintiffs are barred from bringing their claims in federal district court under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/28\/1491\">the Tucker Act<\/a>. Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) has jurisdiction to hear cases against the United States seeking monetary damages in excess of $10,000. The government has been arguing that the grantees\u2019 claims are \u201cessentially contractual\u201d and therefore belong in the CFC. This is significant because the <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/10\/30\/court-of-federal-claims-jurisdiction-remedies-and-unsuitability-to-adjudicate-the-ggrf-lawsuit\/\">CFC has more limited remedial powers<\/a> than a district court. It cannot provide the broad equitable relief sought by the grantees, such as an injunction restoring access to grant funds. Instead, it is generally limited to providing monetary relief for successful claims.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">Right now, we are awaiting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a ruling in a rehearing <em>en banc <\/em>in the climate-related federal funding case <em>Climate United v. Citibank<\/em>. One of the major questions surrounding the case is whether the circuit will reach the forum issue. This blog seeks to provide some analysis as to that possibility by considering an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.climatecasechart.com\/documents\/d-c-circuit-vacated-dismissal-of-challenge-to-termination-of-environmental-and-climate-justice-block-grants-citing-district-courts-failure-to-assess-jurisdictional-issue_bd2c\">order<\/a> in a similar, though distinct climate-related federal funding case on appeal before the D.C. Circuit.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\"><em><strong>Climate United Fund v. Citibank<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">In February 2026, as part of a rehearing <em>en banc<\/em>, the D.C. Circuit Court heard oral arguments in the case <em>Climate United Fund v. Citibank<\/em>. The case involves a challenge to the Trump administration\u2019s efforts to dismantle two programs under the IRA\u2019s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF)\u2014the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA). The rehearing came on the heels of a circuit panel finding, among other holdings, that the GGRF grantees who sued EPA and Citibank had brought their claims in the wrong court. The right forum, the now-vacated order held, was the CFC. As noted above, the importance of this forum issue is hard to overstate. Beyond the limited relief available in the CFC, a change in forum would bring additional procedural and resource hurdles for grantee-plaintiffs, including both the labor and time involved with having to re-file and re-brief the issues.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">It\u2019s been almost a year and a half since the <em>Climate United<\/em> litigation <a href=\"https:\/\/www.climatecasechart.com\/documents\/climate-united-fund-v-citibank-n-a-complaint_0a92\">began<\/a>, and the D.C. Circuit has yet to issue an opinion on the various legal issues presented in the parties\u2019 <em>en banc <\/em>briefing. Last week, however, the D.C. Circuit issued an order in another IRA-based federal funding case, <a href=\"https:\/\/iratracker.org\/litigation\/appalachian-voices-v-epa\/\"><em>Appalachian Voices v. EPA<\/em><\/a>. The order says very little expressly about <em>Climate United<\/em>, but for those inclined to read appellate tea leaves, it may offer a clue or two.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\"><strong><em>Appalachian Voices v. EPA<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">Briefly, <em>Appalachian Voices <\/em>is a lawsuit brought by a coalition of nonprofit organizations challenging EPA\u2019s termination of their <a href=\"https:\/\/iratracker.org\/programs\/ira-section-60201-environmental-and-climate-justice-block-grants\/\">Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants<\/a> (ECJBG), an IRA program that appropriated $2.8 billion in funding for environmental and climate justice activities. In district court, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and class certification. During briefing, however, President Trump signed a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/119th-congress\/house-bill\/1\/text\">budget reconciliation bill<\/a>, the so-called \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill Act\u201d (OBBBA) (Pub. L. 119\u201321), on July 4, 2025. Among other things, the OBBBA repealed Section 60103 of the IRA and rescinded the unobligated balance of the program funds, including for the ECJBG. The OBBBA also rescinded the unobligated funds for the GGRF.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">EPA then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the grantees\u2019 APA claims were essentially breach of contract claims, and thus belonged in the CFC. The agency also argued that the grantees had no cause of action for their constitutional claims. Just as the grantee-plaintiffs in <em>Climate United Fund<\/em>, the grantees here argue that EPA has violated the separation of powers by taking actions to terminate the grants, thereby unconstitutionally infringing on the Congress\u2019s spending and legislative powers. They also argue that EPA violated the Presentment Clause. EPA additionally maintained that the OBBBA mooted the case because \u201call grant funds had reverted to the Treasury and therefore no court could grant meaningful relief to the grantees.\u201d The district court ultimately dismissed the case without addressing mootness, and the plaintiffs <a href=\"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/docket\/70634204\/100\/appalachian-voices-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency\/\">appealed<\/a> the ruling to the D.C. Circuit.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">In last week\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.climatecasechart.com\/documents\/d-c-circuit-vacated-dismissal-of-challenge-to-termination-of-environmental-and-climate-justice-block-grants-citing-district-courts-failure-to-assess-jurisdictional-issue_bd2c\">order<\/a>, the D.C. Circuit took issue with the sequencing of the district court\u2019s dismissal order and vacated it in its entirety. In general, federal courts must assure themselves of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits. In the circuit\u2019s view, the district court should have addressed the threshold question of mootness before reaching the merits of the constitutional claims. From here, however, the circuit\u2019s reasoning becomes somewhat paradoxical. The court stated that the district court didn\u2019t need to resolve the mootness question before resolving the forum issue arising out of the APA claims, another jurisdictional issue. Nonetheless, the circuit vacated the dismissal order in full because \u201con remand the district court\u2019s mootness decision may obviate the need to reach the Tucker Act question.\u201d In the court\u2019s view, \u201cit is appropriate to leave that issue for another day.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\"><strong>Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">What is the effect of this order? Straightforwardly, the order vacated the district court\u2019s dismissal, meaning that on remand, the district court must resolve the question of whether enactment of the OBBA rendered the litigation moot. If it finds the case is moot, then it will again dismiss the action, albeit on narrower grounds. If the district court finds that the case is not mooted by the OBBBA, then it may be \u201cappropriate\u201d for the court to address the forum question (i.e., the APA claims), and then further, the plaintiffs\u2019 constitutional claims.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">The circuit court was well within its power to vacate the entire order. Courts tend to practice restraint and typically avoid wading into issues that are unnecessary to adjudicating the case at hand. The forum issue presents a difficult question with implications extending well beyond <em>Appalachian Voices<\/em>\u2014it has arisen in other federal funding litigation, and other courts have already weighed in. This provides an entirely ordinary explanation for the order. Rather than signaling anything about <em>Climate United<\/em>, the D.C. Circuit may simply have concluded that the district court should not decide a difficult Tucker Act question unless and until it becomes necessary to do so.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">What else, if anything, can be ascertained from the order? The D.C. Circuit clearly prefers that the district court resolve the mootness issue before addressing the forum issue. One possible explanation is that the circuit vacated the entire order because the district court could conclude the case is moot. Or it may be that the D.C. Circuit itself plans to address the forum issue in a forthcoming opinion. A very plausible candidate for that discussion is <em>Climate United<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400\">Unlike <em>Appalachian Voices<\/em>, where mootness could eliminate the need to reach the Tucker Act question, <em>Climate United<\/em>squarely presents that issue because the <em>en banc<\/em> court specifically granted rehearing after vacating the opinion that held that the claims belonged in the CFC. For those inclined to prognosticate, the order may suggest that a decision in <em>Climate United <\/em>is forthcoming and that it will address the forum issue.<\/p>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Under the second Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has radically altered its priorities. Whereas it previously championed climate spending legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), its new leadership, headed by Administrator Lee Zeldin, promptly moved to roll back implementation of IRA programs. Indeed, as part of those efforts, EPA froze the funds [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3422,"featured_media":29405,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8460],"tags":[68674,9430,65726],"class_list":{"0":"post-29402","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-epa","8":"tag-inflation-reduction-act","9":"tag-litigation","10":"tag-u-s-climate-policy","11":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Under the second Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has radically altered its priorities. Whereas it previously championed climate spending legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), its new leadership, headed by Administrator Lee Zeldin, promptly moved to roll back implementation of IRA programs. Indeed, as part of those efforts, EPA froze the funds [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-30T12:21:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1966\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1474\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Vincent Nolette\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Vincent Nolette\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Vincent Nolette\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/00607ff1ecf0beccf7021c926d3d20e1\"},\"headline\":\"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-30T12:21:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1358,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Inflation Reduction Act\",\"Litigation\",\"U.S. Climate Policy\"],\"articleSection\":[\"EPA\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/\",\"name\":\"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-30T12:21:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg\",\"width\":1966,\"height\":1474},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/30\\\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/00607ff1ecf0beccf7021c926d3d20e1\",\"name\":\"Vincent Nolette\",\"description\":\"Vincent M. Nolette is the Sabin Center's Equitable Cities Climate Law Fellow.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/vincent-nolette-bb187b114\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/vincentnolette\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Under the second Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has radically altered its priorities. Whereas it previously championed climate spending legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), its new leadership, headed by Administrator Lee Zeldin, promptly moved to roll back implementation of IRA programs. Indeed, as part of those efforts, EPA froze the funds [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2026-07-30T12:21:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1966,"height":1474,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Vincent Nolette","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Vincent Nolette","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/"},"author":{"name":"Vincent Nolette","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/00607ff1ecf0beccf7021c926d3d20e1"},"headline":"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order","datePublished":"2026-07-30T12:21:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/"},"wordCount":1358,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg","keywords":["Inflation Reduction Act","Litigation","U.S. Climate Policy"],"articleSection":["EPA"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/","name":"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-30T12:21:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/PXL_20210918_120518530.jpg","width":1966,"height":1474},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/30\/reading-the-appellate-tea-leaves-of-a-recent-federal-funding-order\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reading the Appellate Tea Leaves of a Recent Federal Funding Order"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/00607ff1ecf0beccf7021c926d3d20e1","name":"Vincent Nolette","description":"Vincent M. Nolette is the Sabin Center's Equitable Cities Climate Law Fellow.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/vincent-nolette-bb187b114\/"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/vincentnolette\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29402","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3422"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29402"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29402\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29411,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29402\/revisions\/29411"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29405"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}