Court filing

U.S. Conference of Mayors Amicus Brief — New York v. Trump (1st Cir.)

Record facts

Court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Filed	2025-07-25

Summary

An amicus curiae brief of the U.S. Conference of Mayors supporting the plaintiffs-appellees and affirmance, dated July 25, 2025 in Nos. 25-1236, 25-1413 in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. It describes the Conference as the nonpartisan organization of more than 1,400 U.S. cities of 30,000 people or more. It argues that local governments benefit from state-administered funding under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169), which it says allocated billion with billion for tribal, State and local governments, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-58), which it says authorized .2 trillion. It argues the federal funding pause caused irreparable harm to its members and urges the court to uphold the district court preliminary injunction.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

No. 25-1236, 25-1413
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
ILLINOIS; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF ARIZONA;
STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELAWARE; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF
MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE
OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON;
STATE OF WISCONSIN, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF
KENTUCKY, ex rel. ANDREW BESHEAR, in their official capacity as
Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.

(caption continued on next page)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District
of Rhode Island

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE

Vincent M. Nolette (counsel of record)
Amy E. Turner
SABIN CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
LAW COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL
435 W. 116th St.
New York, NY 10027
(402) 320-4210
vmn2106@columbia.edu
DATED: July 25, 2025
Counsel for Amicus Curiae

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in their official capacity as President of the United States;
U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; RUSSELL THURLOW
VOUGHT, in their official capacity as Director of the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SCOTT BESSENT, in
their official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; PATRICIA COLLINS, in their
official capacity as Treasurer of the U.S.; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in their official
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; LINDA MCMAHON, in their official
capacity as Secretary of Education; U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CAMERON HAMILTON, in their official capacity
as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SEAN P. DUFFY, in their
official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR; LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, in their official capacity as Secretary of
Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CHRISTOPHER ALLEN WRIGHT,
in their official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy; U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LEE M. ZELDIN, in their
official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DOUGLAS BURGUM, in their
official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in their official capacity as Secretary
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; PAMELA J. BONDI, in their official capacity as Attorney General;
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; DR. SETHURAMAN
PANCHANATHAN, in their official capacity as Director of the National Science
Foundation; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; BROOKE ROLLINS, in
their official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT; SCOTT TURNER, in their official
capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE; MARCO RUBIO, in their official capacities as Secretary of State and
Acting Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development;
US AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE; PETE HEGSETH, in their official capacity as Secretary of
Defense; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; DOUGLAS
COLLINS, in their official capacity as Secretary of Veterans Affairs; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; HOWARD LUTNICK, in their official
capacity as Secretary of Commerce; NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION; JANET

iii

PETRO, in their official capacity as Acting Administrator of National Aeronautics
and Space Administration; CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE; JENNIFER BASTRESS TAHMASEBI, in their
official capacity as Interim Head of the Corporation for National and Community
Service; U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; LELAND DUDEK, in
their official capacity as Acting Commissioner of United States Social Security
Administration; U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; KELLY
LOEFFLER, in their official capacity as Acting Administrator of U.S. Small
Business Administration, Defendants-Appellants

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE AND MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS
STATEMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 26.1, amicus curiae state that no party to this
brief is a publicly held corporation, issues stock, or has a parent corporation.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4), amicus curiae state that no party’s counsel
authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or party’s counsel contributed
money intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person—
other than the amicus curiae or their counsel—contributed money intended to fund
the preparation or submission of this brief.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE AND MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS
STATEMENT ............................................................................................................ i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .............................................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
I. Local Governments Receive Enormous Benefits From State-Administered IRA
and IIJA Funding ....................................................................................................... 4
A. IRA Programs ................................................................................................... 6
B. IIJA Programs .................................................................................................11
II.
USCM’s Members Have Suffered—and Remain at Risk of Further
Suffering—Irreparable Harm if the Preliminary Injunction is not Upheld. ............17
A. Harm Due to Budget Impacts, Projects Paused, Services Interrupted, and
Layoffs ..................................................................................................................18
B.
Harm to Local Governments’ Climate Efforts and Residents’ Health, and
Well-Being ............................................................................................................21
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................25

iii

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
33 U.S.C. § 1381(a) .................................................................................................14
33 U.S.C. § 1384(a) .................................................................................................14
42 U.S.C. § 300j-12(a)(1)(A)(C) .............................................................................14
42 U.S.C. § 7437 ....................................................................................................7, 9
42 U.S.C. 17155(c)(1)(A) ........................................................................................15
IIJA § 11401 .............................................................................................................12
IIJA § 40101(c) ........................................................................................................16
IIJA § 40103(b) ........................................................................................................16
IIJA § 40107 .............................................................................................................16
IIJA § 40552 .............................................................................................................15
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) ........................................1, 5
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-58) .................1, 5
IRA § 40001 ............................................................................................................... 7
IRA § 40007 ............................................................................................................... 7
IRA § 50121 .............................................................................................................10
IRA § 50131 ............................................................................................................... 6
IRA § 50152 ............................................................................................................... 7
IRA § 60106 ............................................................................................................... 6

IRA § 60107 ............................................................................................................... 6
IRA § 60114 ............................................................................................................... 6
IRA § 60501 ............................................................................................................... 6
IRA § 60505 ............................................................................................................... 7
IRA §§ 60103 ............................................................................................................. 6
Executive Orders
Exec. Order No. 14,154, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025) ..................................... 2
Other Authorities
CPRG Implementation Grants: General Competition Selections, U.S. ENV’T.
PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/cprg-implementation-grants-
general-competition-selections .............................................................................24
About the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION
AGENCY, (last accessed May 29, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/about-clean-
water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf#works .............................................................14
Carolyn Berndt and Peyton Siler Jones, Municipal Water Projects Advance with
State Revolving Fund Financing and Funding, NAT’L LEAGUE OF CITIES (Nov.
14, 2023), https://www.nlc.org/article/2023/11/14/municipal-water-projects-
advance-with-state-revolving-fund-financing-and-funding/ ................................20

CFI Round 1A FY 2022 and 2023 Grant Award Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP.
(last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/round_1a/ .............13
CFI Round 1B Grant Award Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. (last accessed May
28, 2025),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/round_1b/ .............13
CFI Round 2 Grant Award Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. (last accessed May
28, 2025), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/round_2/
..............................................................................................................................13
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, U.S. DEP’T OF
TRANSP. (last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/ ........................................................12
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program Grant Recipients, FY 2022 and
2023 Grant Award Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. (last accessed May 28,
2025), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/round_1a/cfi-
awardees-project-description-table.pdf ................................................................13
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program Grant Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF
TRANSP. (last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/ .............................12

vii

Climate action and the Inflation Reduction Act: A guide for local government
leaders, C40 CITIES CLIMATE LEADERSHIP (Oct. 2022),
https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Climate-action-and-the-Inflation-
Reduction-Act-A-guide-for-local-government-leaders .......................................... 5
EECBG Status Update: Many Eligible Midwest Communities Awarded Formula
Grants, MIDWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE (June 17, 2024),
https://www.mwalliance.org/blog/eecbg-status-update-many-eligible-midwest-
communities-awarded-formula-grants .................................................................15
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG), R.I. OFF. OF ENERGY
RES. (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://energy.ri.gov/leadbyexample/municipal-programs/energy-efficiency-and-
conservation-block-grant-eecbg ...........................................................................20
EPA Research Partner Support Story: Wildfire Smoke Air Monitoring Response
Technology Pilot, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY (last accessed May 12,
2025), https://www.epa.gov/research-states/epa-research-partner-support-story-
wildfire-smoke-air-monitoring-response ..............................................................11
General Competition Selection Applications Table, U.S. ENV’T PROTECTION
AGENCY (last accessed May 28, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-
act/general-competition-selected-applications-table .............................................. 8

viii

Glen Andersen, Megan Cleveland, and Daniel Shea, MODERNIZING THE ELECTRIC
GRID: STATE ROLE AND POLICY OPTIONS, NAT’L CONF. OF STATE LEGS. (Sep. 22,
2021), https://www.ncsl.org/energy/modernizing-the-electric-grid ....................17
Gov. Pritzker Announces $14.9M in Federal Funding for Illinois' Community
Charging Program, State of Illinois (Jan. 11, 2024),
https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.29498.html.....................................13
Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program Projects, U.S.
DEP’T OF ENERGY (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://www.energy.gov/gdo/grid-resilience-and-innovation-partnerships-grip-
program-projects ...................................................................................................16
IPCC, AR6 SYNTHESIS REPORT: CLIMATE CHANGE 2023 ........................................22
Jason G. Su et al., Examining air pollution exposure dynamics in disadvantaged
communities through high-resolution mapping, 10 SCI. ADVANCES 32 (Aug. 7,
2024), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adm9986 ............................11
Local Government Building Decarbonization Challenge, CAL. GRANTS PORTAL
(last accessed May 8, 2025), https://www.grants.ca.gov/grants/local-government-
building-decarbonization-challenge-2/ .................................................................20
Mills Administration Announces $15 Million Federal Grant to Expand Maine’s
Electric Vehicle Charging Network, Maine Gov. Off. of Pol’y and the Future

(Jan. 11, 2024), https://us5.campaign-
archive.com/?u=1996a43d794798c9e8d2e9643&id=c126b6d1e5 ......................13
New York State Awards 23 Projects $7 Million in Urban and Community Forestry
Grants, NEW YORK STATE URBAN FORESTRY COUNCIL (last accessed May 9,
2025), https://nysufc.org/new-york-state-awards-23-projects-7-million-in-urban-
and-community-forestry-grants/2024/08/14/ .......................................................25
Program Guidance for Air Pollution Control Agencies, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION
AGENCY, at 6 (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-02/air-monitoring-grants-ira-
60105a-b-guidance-02-15-24_0.pdf .....................................................................20
Ready to Rebuild, NAT’L LEAGUE OF CITIES (last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.nlc.org/initiative/ready-to-rebuild/ .................................................... 5
Robert Rohde, BERKELEY EARTH, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE REPORT FOR 2024 (Jan.
10, 2025), https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/ ..........22
Solar for All Fast Facts, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May 29,
2025), https://www.epa.gov/greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund/solar-all-fast-facts 23
Solar For All, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY (last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.epa.gov/greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund/solar-all ............................. 9
STATE OF COLORADO, COLORADO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (Mar. 2024),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-03/colorado-pcap.pdf .....7, 25

State of Colorado, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May 29,
2025), https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/state-colorado ....................24
STATE OF ILLINOIS, PRIORITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (Mar. 1, 2024),
https://epa.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/epa/topics/climate/documents/Illi
nois%20Priority%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf .........................................25
State of Illinois, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/state-colorado ................................25

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The U.S. Conference of Mayors (“USCM”), founded in 1932, is the official
nonpartisan organization of the more than 1,400 U.S. cities that are each home to
30,000 people or more. The Conference of Mayors established its Climate Protection
Center and its Alliance for a Sustainable Future to assist local governments with
implementation of both the 2005 Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and the goal
to establish comprehensive decarbonization efforts to keep the global rise in
temperature to the 1.5-degree Celsius level.
USCM’s members and their residents rely on state-administered federal
financial assistance, including under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public
Law 117-169) (“IRA”) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021
(Public Law 117-58) (“IIJA”), in their efforts to protect the health and well-being of
their residents, businesses, community organizations, and visitors and to mitigate
and adapt to climate change, address emergencies, reduce pollution, and improve
transportation and infrastructure. As discussed infra, the “Federal Funding Freeze,”
as described by Plaintiff States (see e.g., Doc. 67 at 11-35), 1 paralyzed those efforts.
Relying on a well-developed record, extensive briefing and two hearings, the District
Court issued a preliminary injunction to halt the irreparably harmful effects of the
Federal Funding Freeze for the Plaintiff States. Doc. 161. Lifting the injunction now

1 Entries on the district court’s docket are cited “Doc.,” appellees’ opening brief is cited “States’ Br.”

could lead to a refreezing of critical state-administered funds, triggering the same
immediate, enduring, and irreparable harms to USCM’s members and their
residents, businesses, community organizations, and visitors.
USCM therefore submits this memorandum to respectfully urge the Court to
uphold the District Court’s preliminary injunction Doc. 161 (hereinafter “Op.”) and
its subsequent Order enforcing the injunction. Doc. 175.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case challenges the “abrupt, categorical, and indefinite pause” of
obligated federal funds. Op. at 24. Under the January 27, 2025 Office of
Management and Budget’s (“OMB”) Memorandum and Section 7 of the January 20,
2025 executive order entitled Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025) (the
“Unleashing EO”), federal agencies were directed to pause the disbursement or
transmission of appropriated federal funds under awarded grants, executed contracts,
and other executed financial obligations, including IRA and IIJA funds (hereinafter
referred to as the “Federal Funding Freeze”). Op. at 9-10. Plaintiff States
“immediately lost access to billions of dollars of funds.” States’ Br. at 8. Plaintiff
States extensively described the scope of the Federal Funding Freeze in their
briefing. Doc. 67 at 11-35; States’ Br. at 8-9, 62-63.
The district court’s March 6, 2025, Order enjoins Defendants “from pausing,
freezing, blocking, canceling, suspending, terminating, or otherwise impeding the

disbursement of appropriated federal funds to the States under awarded grants,
executed contracts, or other executed financial obligations based on the OMB
Directive, . . . or any other materially similar order, memorandum, directive, policy,
or practice under which the federal government imposes or applies a categorical
pause or freeze of funding appropriated by Congress. This includes, but is by no
means not limited to, Section 7(a) of [Unleashing EO].” Op. at 44. This Court
consolidated Defendants’ appeals of the preliminary injunction and a subsequent
Order enforcing it.2
USCM’s members and their residents are directly affected by the Federal
Funding Freeze and receive protection from the existing preliminary injunction.
Tens of billions of dollars in IRA and IIJA funding covered by the preliminary
injunction flows from Plaintiff States to local governments and their residents—
either via subgrants or state-administered programs—supporting the health and
welfare of their local communities. In other words, local governments have “serious
reliance interests” on federal funding administered by Plaintiff States. States’ Br. at
30. USCM files this brief in support of Plaintiff States to present the unique local
government perspective on the serious and irreparable harms that cities, towns, and
counties will face if the injunction is lifted.

2 The district court also denied reconsideration of the motion for enforcement on
April 14, 2025. Doc. 182.

As the district court held, a blanket freeze of appropriated funds resulted in
“unrefuted evidence” of “irreparable and continuing harm” to the Plaintiff States.
Op. at 35; States’ Br. at 12-13. The scope of that harm extends to the local
governments and communities that rely on and benefit from state-administered IRA
and IIJA funding the injunction appropriately released. This Court should not disturb
the district court’s finding.
ARGUMENT
I.
Local Governments Receive Enormous Benefits From State-
Administered IRA and IIJA Funding
In 2021 and 2022, Congress enacted two statutes that appropriate significant
funds for energy and infrastructure projects across the United States. Congress
passed the IIJA in 2021, authorizing $1.2 trillion for transportation and infrastructure
spending.3 In 2022, it enacted the IRA, which included the largest Congressional
appropriation of clean energy spending in American history—allocating $369 billion
toward environmental and energy investments. Of that total, $37 billion was
earmarked for tribal, State, and local governments.4 In other words, Congress

3 See Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429
(2021); See also Ready to Rebuild, NAT’L LEAGUE OF CITIES (last accessed May
28, 2025), https://www.nlc.org/initiative/ready-to-rebuild/.
4 See Inflation Reduction Act, Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818 (2022); See
also Climate action and the Inflation Reduction Act: A guide for local government
leaders, C40 CITIES CLIMATE LEADERSHIP (Oct. 2022),
https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Climate-action-and-the-Inflation-
Reduction-Act-A-guide-for-local-government-leaders.

intended for these funds to reach communities nationwide, and provided billions of
dollars in critical funding to local governments (either directly or through States) to
enable them to plan, invest in, and implement energy, infrastructure, and public
health projects.
Even where local governments are not the direct recipients of federal funds,
they remain key beneficiaries of IRA and IIJA funding. State investments, enabled
by the IRA and IIJA, directly benefit local governments and residents. In some cases,
States have provided sub-grants to local governments, enabling them to make their
own investments. The specific programs discussed in subsections (A) and (B)
exemplify the kinds of legally appropriated federal funding that Plaintiff States have
been awarded to deliver widespread benefits to USCM’s members—statutorily
protected benefits that the Executive now urges this Court to permit them to refreeze
in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Constitution of
the United States. See, e.g., Op. at 20-34 (finding that “the States have shown a
likelihood of success on their APA claims”).
Judge McConnell explained in the district court’s preliminary injunction Order
that, “it is so obvious that it almost need not be stated that when money is obligated
and therefore expected (particularly money that has been spent and reimbursement
is sought) and is not paid as promised, harm follows.” Op. at 35. Local governments
benefit from IRA and IIJA-funded projects that improve air quality, expand access

to electric vehicle (“EV”) charging infrastructure, protect sources of drinking water,
and make buildings and the grid more energy-efficient and are thus harmed by the
freezing of federal funds. See States’ Br. at 35. Absent continued injunctive relief,
that harm will renew and re-intensify with each passing day, to the detriment of
Plaintiff States and to USCM’s members and their residents.
A. IRA Programs
In the IRA, Congress created and appropriated funds for eleven grant
programs for which state governments were made expressly eligible.5 For example,
Congress created the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (“CPRG”) Program, and
appropriated $5 billion to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
“competitively award grants to eligible entities to implement” greenhouse gas
(“GHG”) pollution reduction plans, and “make funds available” to grantees

5 IRA §§ 60103 (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund), 60114 (Climate Pollution
Reduction Grants), 50131 (Assistance for Latest and Zero Building Energy Code
Adoption), 60106 (Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles), 60107 (Low Emissions
Electricity Program), 60501 (Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant Program),
60505 (Environmental Review Implementation Funds), 40001 (Investing in
Coastal Communities and Climate Resilience), 23003 (State and Private Forestry
Conservation Programs), 50152 (Grants to Facilitate the Siting of Interstate
Electricity Transmission) and 40007 (Alternative Fuel and Low-Emission Aviation
Technology Program). Local governments are also expressly eligible and have
been awarded hundreds of millions of dollars under these programs. However, IRA
and IIJA funding directly to local governments is not within the scope of this
litigation.

including state governments.6 Under the CPRG’s planning phase, Plaintiff States
were eligible to receive $69 million in grants to create plans that identify actions—
including actions that local governments could take—to reduce GHG emissions in
their states.7
CPRG’s second phase awarded $4.3 billion in competitive funding for
implementation strategies identified during the planning phase. Plaintiff States
received over $1.7 billion in grants.8 For example, a coalition of states—
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island—was
awarded $450 million to “fund projects to rapidly accelerate the adoption of cold-
climate air-source heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, and ground source heat
pumps in more than 500,000 single-family and multifamily residential buildings.”9
Another coalition made up of Plaintiff States—Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,

6 42 U.S.C. § 7437(a)(1), (2); (b); (c)(1), (3).
7 See, e.g., STATE OF COLORADO, COLORADO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (Mar. 2024),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-03/colorado-pcap.pdf
(identifying local government GHG reduction priority measures that “provide
significant GHG emissions reduction benefits, advance other state priorities such
as improved air quality and equity, are aligned with local government priorities
based on stakeholder engagement,” and are within the authority and ability of
Colorado local governments to implement.).
8 General Competition Selection Applications Table, U.S. ENV’T PROTECTION
AGENCY (last accessed May 28, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-
act/general-competition-selected-applications-table (data filtered to state awards
and summed for Plaintiff States).
9 Id.

and New Jersey—was awarded $248,937,720 to advance the “Clean Corridor,” an
effort to “deploy electric vehicle charging infrastructure for commercial zero-
emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles” along the Interstate-95 freight
corridor.10 Local governments and communities will benefit from these two
coalition’s actions through, respectively, increased EV charging access and lower
grid stress due to the energy efficiency gains of heat pump technology. Communities
in these states stand to see air quality improvements by reducing local pollutants
produced by fossil fuel appliances and internal-combustion engines.
Also under the IRA, Congress created the Solar for All (“SFA”) program,
appropriating $7 billion to EPA “to enable low-income and disadvantaged
communities to deploy or benefit from zero-emission technologies,” such as solar
installations and battery storage for single- and multi-family households and
community solar programs.11 EPA awarded most SFA grants to state and nonprofit
applicants.12 Plaintiff States received over $2.2 billion in SFA grants, and may use
their funds to make sub-awards to local governments.13 Even where states opt not to
make sub-grants to local governments, the ultimate benefits from the solar energy
deployment – cleaner air and lower utility bills – are felt at the local level. State SFA

10 Id.
11 42 U.S.C. § 7434(a)(1).
12 Solar For All, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY (last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.epa.gov/greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund/solar-all.
13 Id.

grants advance state goals—such as reducing fossil fuel reliance, localizing energy
generation to ease grid stress and improve reliability, improving air quality, and
expanding access to low-carbon technologies—through measurable changes in local
communities. The legal framework may distinguish between state and local entities
for administrative purposes, but that distinction has no bearing on the real-world
benefits from the program. Those benefits—in the form of improvements in health,
safety, and welfare—accrue to local communities within the state where projects are
deployed, and it is those same communities that will feel the brunt of the harm from
a renewed funding freeze.
Congress also appropriated $4.5 billion to the Department of Energy (“DOE”)
for Home Electrification and Appliances Rebates Program.14 Administered by state
energy offices, this rebate program “subsidizes low- and moderate-income
households’ purchase and installation of electric heat pump water heaters, electric
heat pump space heating and cooling systems, and other home electrification
projects.” Doc. 66 at 6. Thousands of homeowners in Plaintiff States have already
enrolled. Id. The resulting energy efficiency gains from this rebate program will
directly benefit USCM’s members and their residents by lowering energy costs,
increasing grid reliability, and reducing air pollution in urban areas. As a result, air
quality in local communities will improve and household energy costs may decline.

14 IRA § 50121.

Again, although the funds are administered by the states, the program’s economic,
climate, and public health benefits are not confined to state governments. Rather,
like SFA, these benefits are realized at the local level—in neighborhoods,
households, and municipal systems—demonstrating that the impact of these federal
investments is both broad and community-specific.
Further, under Sections 103 to 105 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has
administered a national air monitoring program for sixty years. Doc. 66 at 5.
Congress appropriated $117.5 million in the IRA to “fund air monitoring grants
under this program to increase States’ abilities to detect dangerous pollution like
particulate matter (soot) and air toxics, including in disadvantaged communities.”
Id. at 5-6. These pollutants are especially concentrated in urban areas—particularly
urban disadvantaged communities.15 These funds improve detection and provide
data, which can help local governments make informed decisions to protect human
health and the environment. For example, in urban areas recovering from wildfires,
early detection of high levels of particulate matter in the air can help local
governments protect their residents from the severely negative impacts of sustained

15 See, e.g., Jason G. Su et al., Examining air pollution exposure dynamics in
disadvantaged communities through high-resolution mapping, 10 SCI. ADVANCES
32 (Aug. 7, 2024), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adm9986 (study in
California revealing “consistently higher mean annual concentrations of NO2 and
PM2.5 in disadvantaged communities compared to advantaged communities.”).

and acute exposure to air pollution.16 Lifting the injunction would compromise this
public health safeguard, rendering the most vulnerable communities even more
vulnerable from unmonitored air pollution, aging pollution monitoring systems, or a
lack of air quality data.
USCM’s members have structured their climate, clean energy, and public
health initiatives around these state-administered programs funded through the IRA.
The latter deliver tangible benefits at the local level, and local governments have
relied on both funding streams in planning, budgeting, and implementing their work.
To preserve funds essential to advancing local climate and environmental justice
goals, the injunction must be upheld.
B. IIJA Programs
As with the IRA, USCM’s members have been awarded grants to implement
a range of IIJA programs, but also depend on state administered IIJA funding to fully
realize the statute’s intended benefits.
For example, Congress legislated through the IIJA to originate and
appropriate funds for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (“CFI”) grant

16 See, e.g., EPA Research Partner Support Story: Wildfire Smoke Air Monitoring
Response Technology Pilot, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY (last accessed May
12, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/research-states/epa-research-partner-support-story-
wildfire-smoke-air-monitoring-response.

program.17 Administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”), the
CFI program allocates $2.5 billion in competitive funding for EV charging and
alternative fuel corridor grants.18 Through CFI’s first three rounds of funding, state
governments were awarded hundreds of millions of federal dollars to implement the
program in their communities.19
In the first round of funding alone, state governments were awarded
approximately $133 million.20 For example, Illinois was awarded $14,962,506 to
create a state community charging program.21 New York received $14,786,777 to
implement level 2 and direct current fast charging infrastructure for EVs.22 With its

17 IIJA § 11401.
18 Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, U.S. DEP’T
OF TRANSP. (last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/.
19 See Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program Grant Recipients, U.S. DEP’T
OF TRANSP. (last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/.
20 Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program Grant Recipients, FY 2022 and
2023 Grant Award Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. (last accessed May 28,
2025), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/round_1a/cfi-
awardees-project-description-table.pdf (data filtered for state governments and
award amounts summed).
21 See CFI Round 1A FY 2022 and 2023 Grant Award Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF
TRANSP. (last accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/round_1a/; Gov.
Pritzker Announces $14.9M in Federal Funding for Illinois' Community Charging
Program, State of Illinois (Jan. 11, 2024), https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-
release.29498.html.
22 Id.

$15 million award, Maine seeks to create an accessible statewide EV charging
network by installing charging ports in 63 cities and towns.23 In the second and third
rounds of funding, similar sums were awarded, with 12 state governments winning
grants worth nearly $400 million.24 Local governments serve as critical cooperating
partners in planning and implementing the local clean energy transportation
networks that the CFI program supports. Many of these projects will be built directly
in communities across Plaintiff States, meaning that the benefits of a clean energy
transportation sector will be felt in the urban areas that USCM’s members represent.
The IIJA appropriated almost $30 billion “for use in constructing and
rehabilitating state water, wastewater, and sewage facilities[.]” Doc. 67 at 49. These
funds include mandatory capitalization grants for revolving state water funds.25
Section 50210 of the IIJA appropriated $14.65 billion in grants for States’ Clean
Water Revolving Funds for 2022 to 2026. Doc. 67 at 7. The IIJA also reauthorized

23 See Mills Administration Announces $15 Million Federal Grant to Expand
Maine’s Electric Vehicle Charging Network, Maine Gov. Off. of Pol’y and the
Future (Jan. 11, 2024), https://us5.campaign-
archive.com/?u=1996a43d794798c9e8d2e9643&id=c126b6d1e5.
24 See CFI Round 1B Grant Award Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. (last
accessed May 28, 2025),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/round_1b/ and CFI
Round 2 Grant Award Recipients, U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. (last accessed May 28,
2025), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/round_2/.
25 See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1381(a), 1384(a), (c)(2) (EPA “shall make capitalization grants
to each state” for water pollution control using a statutory formula); 42 U.S.C. §
300j-12(a)(1)(A)(C) (drinking water grant).

and appropriated an additional $14.65 billion from 2022 to 2026 for Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds. Id. at 8. Local governments are among the primary eligible
entities to receive state-administered financial assistance for a range of water
infrastructure projects.26 These include the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities, development of green infrastructure, stormwater management systems, the
protection of water bodies, and water recycling initiatives.27 States can use their
revolving funds to pursue public policy objectives by, for example, directing funding
toward certain communities or incentivizing certain types of water-related projects.
In turn, local governments—including USCM’s members—reap substantial public
health and infrastructure benefits from the projects these funds support.
Local governments are not just beneficiaries, but statutorily intended
recipients of state-level IIJA funding. Congress appropriated $550 million to the
DOE for the IIJA’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (“EECBG”)
Program, which is available to States, Tribes, and local governments to help
implement strategies to reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions, and to improve
energy efficiency.28 EECBG provides crucial investments in communities with

26 See About the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), U.S. ENV’T.
PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/about-clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf#works.
27 Id.
28 IIJA § 40552; During the initial Federal Funding Freeze, DOE took down its
web pages dedicated to EECBG. EECBG’s web address,

historically limited funding for climate action and must allocate 28% of its grants to
state governments.29 State governments are required to sub-grant at least 60% of
their formula funding to cities and counties that do not otherwise receive funding
under the program.30 Local governments have used EECBG sub-grants to develop
clean energy plans, conduct energy audits, implement energy efficiency and clean
energy upgrades and projects, and install EV charging stations—projects that, for
many communities with limited capacity, would not occur but for state EECBG
support.31
Congress also appropriated $10.5 billion of IIJA funds to DOE’s Grid
Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (“GRIP”) program, which aims to ensure the
continued reliability of the country’s power system in the face of increasing extreme
weather events.32 DOE has already awarded billions of dollars to hundreds of

https://www.energy.gov/clean-energy-infrastructure/energy-efficiency-and-
conservation-block-grant-program-formula-grant, now reroutes to
https://www.energy.gov.
29 EECBG Status Update: Many Eligible Midwest Communities Awarded Formula
Grants, MIDWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE (June 17, 2024),
https://www.mwalliance.org/blog/eecbg-status-update-many-eligible-midwest-
communities-awarded-formula-grants.
30 42 U.S.C. 17155(c)(1)(A).
31 See supra, n. 29.
32 IIJA §§ 40101(c), 40103(b), 40107.

projects in all fifty states, including several state-led projects.33 Hawai’i and North
Carolina were awarded $17,925,000 and $57,099,386, respectively, to enhance grid
resilience and reliability; Maine was selected to receive $65,359,234 to modernize
its electric grid.34 A resilient power system means that local governments and their
residents can access basic necessities and essential services throughout the year,
during routine weather and extreme events. Modernizing the grid also can increase
energy efficiency and reduce energy costs for residents in communities across
Plaintiff States.35
Under these and other IRA and IIJA programs, Plaintiff States have won
funding for projects that local governments rely on and that federal agencies are
obligated to fund. These funds provide for a host of actions that advance local
climate action, protect and improve public health, and safeguard the well-being of
their communities and residents. The district court found that the Federal Funding
Freeze was “overly broad” and created “significant disruption[s]” to activities
“integral to [the] daily lives” of Plaintiff States’ citizens, many of whom are also

33 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program Projects, U.S.
DEP’T OF ENERGY (last accessed May 29, 2025), https://www.energy.gov/gdo/grid-
resilience-and-innovation-partnerships-grip-program-projects.
34 Id.
35 See Glen Andersen, Megan Cleveland, and Daniel Shea, MODERNIZING THE
ELECTRIC GRID: STATE ROLE AND POLICY OPTIONS, NAT’L CONF. OF STATE LEGS.
(Sep. 22, 2021), https://www.ncsl.org/energy/modernizing-the-electric-grid.

residents of USCM’s members. Op. at 43. As explained more fully in the following
section, lifting the injunction stands to directly undermine USCM’s members’ ability
to protect the health and well-being of their residents, maintain critical infrastructure,
and implement the very climate, transportation, clean energy programs, and
investments that the IRA and IIJA were duly enacted by Congress to support.
II.
USCM’s Members Have Suffered—and Remain at Risk of Further
Suffering—Irreparable Harm if the Preliminary Injunction is not
Upheld.
Plaintiff States have described in detail the irreparable harm caused by the
Federal Funding Freeze, which “hobbl[ed] programs” advancing their sovereign
interests. Doc. 67 at 58-61. The preliminary injunction also averted substantial harm
to local governments and their residents—harms not specifically addressed by the
district court, yet no less concrete or imminent. If the injunction is lifted, Plaintiff
States and their local governments will face the same irreparable harm that the
district court found to be irrefutable, for “it is their citizens, often our most
vulnerable citizens” who suffered much of the harm from the Freeze. Op. at 36.
By their own concession, Defendants cannot present, because they do not have,
a clear timeline for how long a renewed freeze would continue. Op. at 35
(“Defendants concede that there is no date written into the EOs or the OMB
Directive or instructions when the freeze will end but argues that . . . it will end
eventually.”). In the absence of a formally communicated, reliable timeline, local

governments would face stalled or withdrawn payments for projects already
underway, services already delivered, and goods already purchased. While these
harms would still occur during a renewed freeze with a known deadline, they are
made all the more acute because the lack of certainty would compromise local
governments’ ability to plan, leaving them in the dark and forcing them to make
under-informed decisions that impact their residents’ health and well-being.
These harms are not abstract or speculative. They would worsen each day.
IRA- and IIJA-funded projects would be at risk of languishing, costs may rise, and
ultimately, local communities will bear the burden of stalled or abandoned projects,
to the detriment of local taxpayers. USCM’s members are relying on state-
administered federal funding to help protect the health and well-being of their
residents, business communities, and others who rely on them, supplying crucial
services for which they may have foregone other projects or avenues of funding.
A. Harm Due to Budget Impacts, Projects Paused, Services Interrupted,
and Layoffs
Local governments have structured their budgets, secured commitments, and
begun project implementation in reliance on Defendants’ fulfillment of funding
obligations to Plaintiff States. These obligations are not conceptual—they have
enabled tangible, shovel-ready projects that local governments would otherwise be

unable to pursue. If the injunction is lifted and a renewed freeze is implemented,
these projects may not move forward.
For example, through its Drinking Water State Revolving Fund,
Massachusetts awarded $115.2 million in grants for 47 projects in 40 municipalities
and water utilities across the state.36 In Wisconsin, through the IIJA’s appropriation
for state water revolving funds to address emerging contaminants, the City of
Wausau was awarded over $17 million, part of which was earmarked for projects
intended to reduce the concentration of PFAs in drinking water.37 California used
funds from its EECBG grant to award subgrants to local governments for projects to
plan or implement building decarbonization actions.38 In Rhode Island, 29 cities and
towns are eligible to receive EECBG subgrants “to support the reduction of fossil
fuel emissions, reduction of total energy use in communities, improve efficiency of
facilities, and contribute to the growth of the clean energy economy.”39 And under

36 See Carolyn Berndt and Peyton Siler Jones, Municipal Water Projects Advance
with State Revolving Fund Financing and Funding, NAT’L LEAGUE OF CITIES (Nov.
14, 2023), https://www.nlc.org/article/2023/11/14/municipal-water-projects-
advance-with-state-revolving-fund-financing-and-funding/.
37 Id.
38 See e.g., Local Government Building Decarbonization Challenge, CAL. GRANTS
PORTAL (last accessed May 8, 2025), https://www.grants.ca.gov/grants/local-
government-building-decarbonization-challenge-2/.
39 See Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG), R.I. OFF. OF
ENERGY RES. (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://energy.ri.gov/leadbyexample/municipal-programs/energy-efficiency-and-
conservation-block-grant-eecbg.

the air monitoring program described supra Sec. I(A)(a), state awardees can make
subawards to local governments to help monitor air pollution.40
Lifting the preliminary injunction would jeopardize these and many other
projects, placing them at risk of delay or cancellation. These are projects that local
governments may not have otherwise had the funding to pursue. Without assistance
from Plaintiff-State-administered federal funding, local governments would be
forced to either reallocate funds from other essential services or pause or cancel
projects indefinitely. Moving money from other programs and services could result
in the loss of services essential to the daily lives of residents. As a corollary, the
budgetary trade-offs would risk layoffs to public employees and contractors,
exacerbating the harm to local communities.
Indeed, as the district court described, it is “so obvious” that a pause in
funding would cause harm because it creates unavoidable opportunity costs. Faced
with a renewed Federal Funding Freeze, local governments would have to give up
something. Each option would leave USCM’s members and their residents worse
off.

40 See Program Guidance for Air Pollution Control Agencies, U.S. ENV’T.
PROTECTION AGENCY, at 6 (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-02/air-monitoring-grants-ira-
60105a-b-guidance-02-15-24_0.pdf.

B. Harm to Local Governments’ Climate Efforts and Residents’ Health,
and Well-Being
Lifting the preliminary injunction would also stand to significantly jeopardize
USCM’s members’ efforts to mitigate and respond to the impacts of climate change,
causing further harm to the health and well-being of local residents. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), a world-leading panel of
scientific experts convened by the United Nations and the World Meteorological
Organization, has clearly stated the world must reduce GHG emissions from fossil
fuel extraction and consumption as rapidly as possible to avoid the potentially
catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic global warming and climate change.41
Recent data shows that 2024 was the warmest year since 1850, with global average
temperatures 1.62°C above pre-industrial levels.42 The higher temperatures are
supercharging extreme weather events which threaten communities across
American. The IPCC has warned that, to limit future impacts, GHG emissions must
be rapidly and dramatically reduced over the next five years.43 Local governments
are at the forefront of efforts to reduce emissions and prepare for climate impacts
and rely on federal funds to do that.

41 IPCC, AR6 SYNTHESIS REPORT: CLIMATE CHANGE 2023 (2023) [hereinafter
IPCC AR6 SR].
42 See Robert Rohde, BERKELEY EARTH, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE REPORT FOR 2024
(Jan. 10, 2025), https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/.
43 IPCC AR6 SR, supra note 41, at 92.

Congress appreciated the need to quickly lower GHG emissions and
appropriated IRA and IIJA funds accordingly. The programs and funding reflected
herein reflect Congressional policy judgments and priorities that the Executive must
respect. Because the Federal Funding Freeze unlawfully violated and jeopardized
that careful decision-making, the district court properly enjoined it.
A renewed Federal Funding Freeze on municipal projects made possible
through state-administered IRA and IIJA funding would radically inhibit local
climate action. Local emissions-reducing projects funded by the IRA and IIJA
include solar energy and battery storage installations benefitting disadvantaged
communities through the IRA’s Solar for All program. If fully implemented, SFA
would reduce GHG emissions equivalent to more than 7 million passenger vehicles
per year, while reducing local air pollution and lowering energy bills.44
Other critical projects now at risk include those funded by CPRG and EECBG
sub-grants worth tens of millions of dollars. These are projects that will reduce GHG
emissions and local air pollution, and improve public health, through building
decarbonization, renewable energy deployment, reductions in methane emissions at
landfills, infrastructure improvements to incentivize alternative transportation, EV
and associated charging infrastructure, and energy-efficiency improvements. The

44 Solar for All Fast Facts, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May
29, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund/solar-all-fast-facts.

collective benefits of these projects are immense: the deployment of tens of
thousands of megawatts of solar generation, hundreds of thousands of efficient heat-
pumps, clean water supplying millions of people, millions of metric tons of avoided
methane emissions, and millions of tons of diverted food waste from landfills,
among others.45
The cascading effects of a renewed Federal Funding Freeze would further
threaten the long-term viability of these projects: permits may lapse, contractors may
withdraw, and purchased materials may deteriorate or become unusable. A renewed
freeze jeopardizes emissions reductions and introduces damaging uncertainty into
municipal planning. These harms would be made particularly acute because local
governments reasonably relied on final, binding IRA and IIJA agreements between
Plaintiff States and the federal government. Many local governments forewent other
sources of capital for their climate work in reliance on state plans to fund and
implement projects in their communities or provide subgrants to do so.
Even temporary delays in funding and project execution would result in long-
lasting harm. For example, if Colorado’s plan to fund 64 local governments to adopt
improved minimum energy codes through subgrants from its $128 million CPRG

45 See, e.g., CPRG Implementation Grants: General Competition Selections, U.S.
ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May 29, 2025),
https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/cprg-implementation-grants-general-
competition-selections.

implementation grant is frozen, it would hinder local governments’ climate
commitments, like Denver’s goal to achieve net-zero building emissions by 2050.46
The timing of climate action matters a great deal. Even if Denver could, in theory,
reach its 2050 goal in the face of a temporary delay, it will be more difficult and
costly to achieve those reductions closer to that date, and as noted, the temporariness
of the delay is very much not guaranteed. Local governments in Illinois face similar
risks, as the state plans to use part of its $430 million grant to provide local
governments with subgrants to support transitions to stretch energy codes.47 Through
its U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Forest Service Urban and Community
Forestry Grant, New York awarded $7.1 million in subgrants to 23 urban forestry
projects to plant more trees, with a particular focus on disadvantaged communities.48

46 See State of Colorado, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May 29,
2025), https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/state-colorado (explaining that
Colorado’s Decarbonization Accelerator will “offer[] subawards to local
governments for policies and actions in sectors with significant GHG emissions
reduction potential, including in the transportation, buildings, land-use, and waste
sectors.”); see also STATE OF COLORADO, COLORADO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (Mar.
2024), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-03/colorado-pcap.pdf.
47 See State of Illinois, U.S. ENV’T. PROTECTION AGENCY, (last accessed May 29,
2025), https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/state-colorado; see also STATE
OF ILLINOIS, PRIORITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (Mar. 1, 2024),
https://epa.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/epa/topics/climate/documents/Illino
is%20Priority%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf.
48 New York State Awards 23 Projects $7 Million in Urban and Community
Forestry Grants, NEW YORK STATE URBAN FORESTRY COUNCIL (last accessed May
9, 2025), https://nysufc.org/new-york-state-awards-23-projects-7-million-in-urban-
and-community-forestry-grants/2024/08/14/.

If the preliminary injunction is lifted, any delay caused by a renewed Federal
Funding Freeze will exacerbate public health harms linked to low tree canopy
coverage—such as heightened extreme heat risk, poor storm resiliency, reduced air
quality, and the loss of urban green space benefits to quality of life.49
Lifting the injunction would thus immediately endanger projects critical to
municipal climate action, increase local climate-related risks, and undermine local
governments’ trust in the federal government. The District Court correctly
recognized that Plaintiff States would experience these same harms and rightly
granted injunctive relief. Preserving the preliminary injunction protects Plaintiff
States and the day-to-day ability of local governments to serve their residents, meet
statutory mandates, and deliver on federally funded, state-administered climate and
infrastructure goals.
CONCLUSION
Wheretofore, Amicus Curiae USCM respectfully urges this Court to uphold
the injunction and allow briefing on the merits to proceed without changing the
status quo.
Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Vince M. Nolette

VINCENT M. NOLETTE
Counsel of Record
AMY E. TURNER
SABIN CENTER FOR CLIMATE

49 Id.

CHANGE LAW
435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10027
(402) 320-4210
vmn2106@columbia.edu

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the foregoing brief complies with the type-volume
limitations set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(i) and 29(a)(5) because this brief
contains 5,359 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P
32(f). The foregoing brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App.
P 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Office
Word in 14-point Times New Roman font.

/s/ Vincent M. Nolette

VINCENT M. NOLETTE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 25th day of July 2025, I caused a true and correct
copy of the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court of the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. I
certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users, and that service
will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.