Federal judge reinstates Trump-cancelled ‘Solar For All’ program
A lawsuit pitting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against the Rhode Island American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) labor union and other plaintiffs has reached its conclusion, with potentially massive implications for the American solar industry.
Judge Mary S. McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island has ruled in favor of the union. Specifically, McElroy and the court state that the EPA’s 2025 termination of the Biden-era Solar For All (SFA) program is unlawful thanks to rescinding of already-allocated federal funds. In turn, the court has ordered the federal agency to reinstate the renewable energy program.
In her decision, McElroy writes that the second Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed in summer 2025, “did not convert the obligated SFA grants into lumpsum appropriations that EPA had unilateral discretion to administer.” Because the EPA’s rescinding of funds included grants that were already awarded, the court rules that the misappropriation of funds is in violation of a direct order from Congress.
“Instead, Congress’s clear intent was that EPA continue to administer the already obligated SFA grants,” she says. “Defendants acted contrary to this intent, and with no other statutory authority, when they terminated the SFA program. The Termination Decision was therefore contrary to law and in excess of its statutory authority, in violation of the (Administrative Procedure Act).”
Potential impact nationwide
The EPA is currently reviewing the court order and considering an appeal, according to officials. Should that appeal either be struck down or go unheard completely, the impacts of McElroy’s decision could have wide-reaching implications throughout the entire energy sector.
Instituted by the Biden administration, the Solar For All program planned to assist up to 900,000 low-income American households with residential solar. Coupled with major tax incentives for solar energy through the Inflation Reduction Act, the program may have heralded a shift in the American energy market as a whole, had it stayed through the beginning of President Trump’s second term.
“Clean, affordable power like solar shouldn’t be a closed-door luxury,” says Alex St. Pierre, VP for environmental justice at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), in a statement by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). “Solar for All was built to open that door, and EPA tried to slam it shut.
“Today’s ruling pushes it back open. 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.”
Jillian Blanchard, SVP of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), says the decision “makes clear that EPA unlawfully terminated the Solar for All Program.” While the ultimate fate of the Solar For All program remains uncertain, law officials across the energy space say its potential full reinstatement is a major blow to the Trump administration’s cost-cutting efforts when it comes to Biden-era energy policies.
“Today’s ruling confirms what we have argued from the beginning: EPA cannot erase a $7 billion program that Congress created and funded,” says Jillian Blanchard, SVP of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG). “For more than a year, families and communities have seen higher energy bills while billions of dollars intended to lower electricity costs sat out of reach. Today’s decision makes clear that EPA unlawfully terminated the Solar for All Program.”
