Rhode Island Judge, a Trump Appointee, Rules EPA Illegally Killed $7 Billion Solar for All Program

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled Friday, September 18, 2026, that the Trump administration broke the law when it killed the $7 billion Solar for All program.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee, vacated the Environmental Protection Agency's August 2025 termination of the program. Her reasoning was narrow and statutory, not ideological: Congress had already obligated the money, and neither the original 2022 climate law nor the One Big Beautiful Bill Act gave EPA the authority to claw it back.

"The OBBBA did not convert SFA funding into a lump-sum amount subject to EPA's discretion," McElroy wrote, according to The Hill. "Instead, Congress's clear intent was that EPA continue to administer the already obligated SFA grants. Defendants acted contrary to this intent, and with no other statutory authority, when they terminated the SFA program."

What the program actually does

Solar for All was created to get rooftop and community solar into more than 900,000 lower-income households, according to the Associated Press. It's one piece of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the so-called "green bank" Democrats built into the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act under President Biden.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin rescinded the Solar for All money in August 2025, a month after Trump signed the OBBBA, calling the grant program a "boondoggle," per the AP. A $7 billion federal spending program built under the previous administration and funded through a massive reconciliation bill is exactly the kind of thing a new administration campaigning on cutting waste would want to scrutinize and potentially unwind. Zeldin's position was that this money should not be locked in forever just because a prior Congress appropriated it.

McElroy's ruling doesn't say that concern is wrong on the merits. It says EPA didn't have the legal tool to act on it. The money was already obligated to specific grantees, and the OBBBA's rescission language applied to unobligated balances, not funds already committed. That's a legal distinction, not a policy verdict on whether the program is good or bad.

Who sued, and what they're saying now

The case was brought by the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, the Rhode Island Center for Justice, and the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors, with the Conservation Law Foundation representing plaintiffs.

Patrick Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, called the ruling "a big victory" for states, telling reporters, "If and when the program does get up and running, there will be thousands and thousands of union jobs created across the United States. We were proud to be the lead plaintiff."

Alex St. Pierre, vice president for environmental justice at Conservation Law Foundation, said in a statement, "Communities have waited long enough. Nearly every family is looking for ways to cut their energy bill. These dollars should go where Congress intended: toward lower energy bills, less climate pollution, good jobs and cleaner air."

Nick Torrey, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, said in a statement carried by The Hill that EPA "broke the law when it killed the program and pocketed the money." McElroy's order focused on statutory authority rather than intent.

EPA's next move, and the bigger fight over the fund

An EPA spokesperson told The Hill and Newsday the agency is "reviewing the decision and considering options for appeal." As of Friday, no appeal had been filed.

This isn't the only legal fight over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Attorneys general from more than a dozen states separately sued over roughly $20 billion in canceled funding meant for eight community development banks and nonprofits, covering everything from home energy efficiency upgrades to large-scale community cooling projects, according to CT Mirror and Newsday. A federal judge in Washington dismissed that case in June 2026 for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have appealed.

The $7 billion Solar for All piece is now back on track after McElroy's ruling. The much larger $20 billion piece of the same fund remains tied up on appeal, with no resolution yet.

In May 2026, solar supplied more of the nation's electricity than coal for the first time, according to the Associated Press. Whether that trend continues may depend partly on whether programs like Solar for All actually get money out the door or spend more years in court.

The open question now is straightforward. Does EPA appeal McElroy's ruling to the First Circuit, or does it start releasing the $7 billion to states and grantees as the judge ordered? The agency hasn't said which.