Climate justice for future generations faces a myriad of challenges in the United States legal system as the emerging efforts in climate litigation grapple with administrative and procedural roadblocks. Such a challenge is clear in the ongoing case Appalachian Voices, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., which is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In this case, the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction presents the plaintiffs with an immense hurdle in their pursuit for relief.
The dispute in Appalachian Voices concerns the “Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants” (“Grant(s)”), a $3 billion program established under the Biden Administration in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). However, upon assuming office in January of 2025, the new Trump Administration issued two executive orders which undermined the function of the Grants. Executive Order 14154, entitled “Unleashing American Energy,” called on federal agencies to pause all funds dispersed by the IRA. Executive Order 14151, entitled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” required federal agencies to terminate all climate justice offices and positions. Soon thereafter, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) complied with these Executive Orders, freezing and then terminating the funds allotted for Grant recipients. The plaintiffs represent a class of Grant recipients who are challenging the EPA’s decision to terminate the Grant program, citing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution. In their complaint, they seek declarative and injunctive relief, asserting that the Court should rule the EPA’s actions unlawful, restore the rescinded funds, and work to effectuate the remaining projects.
In the District Court’s Opinion, rendered on 29 August 2025 by Judge Richard J. Leon, the plaintiffs were denied both injunctive and declaratory relief, on the grounds that their suit belonged in the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), rather than in the District Court system where it is currently. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ pursuit for relief was inherently financial/contractual and thus belonged in the COFC pursuant to the Tucker Act, a United States statute governing the jurisdiction of that court. However, this is hardly the first time that the United States government has used subject-matter jurisdiction claims to sidestep accountability. In fact, as Federal Circuit Appeals Judge S. Jay Plager notes, the government has historically weaponized the complex interaction between the APA and the Tucker Act to play a kind of “jurisdictional ping-pong” where plaintiffs move between the District Court and the COFC as they face the government’s respective jurisdiction arguments—asserting that a COFC claim should actually be in the District Court under the APA, or that a District Court claim should actually be in the COFC under the Tucker Act. Therefore, even if the plaintiffs in Appalachian Voices heeded the District Court opinion and filed a petition in the COFC, the government’s reputation of arguing for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds means that the applicants may never achieve the relief they seek.
Additionally, even if the petition was deemed admissible and reached a discussion on the merits, the COFC awards a remarkably low amount of money to claimants. In their fiscal year 2025 summary, the COFC reported that they awarded $579,243,840.38 to claimants (including participant settlements). This was only 0.25% of the amount claimed ($231,610,389,000.00), and much less than the $3 billion cost of the Grant program. The total amount awarded and the ratio thereof to the amount claimed is similarly low in previous years, with the exception of 2020 in which the awarded and claimed amounts were nearly the same. That is to say, a singular award of $3 billion would be unprecedented for the COFC, indicating that relief in this avenue would likely be insufficient to repair the damages done by cancelling the Grant program. The class of plaintiffs could pursue relief individually, but the litigation required for hundreds of individual complaints would likely present more chances for the government to challenge the subject-matter jurisdiction, thereby delaying any potential reparation even further.
With these questions looming, the primary stakeholders in this litigation—the Grant recipients and their respective communities—lose out on crucial funding for climate resilience projects designed to “enable communities and their partners to overcome longstanding environmental challenges and implement meaningful solutions to meet community needs now and for generations to come.” The impact on future generations, in addition to the immediate hardship felt by communities across the United States, makes this litigation a significant development in climate change jurisprudence and the enjoyment of human rights. The Grant program awarded funds to projects which develop youth participation in policymaking and environmental stewardship, work to provide clean air in schools, finance local infrastructure initiatives, among many others. The common thread in these projects is that they are designed to make meaningful change for present peoples but also future generations. With the funding completely ceased, many of these projects cannot survive. With that comes devastating consequences for communities in the United States who will continue to face immense environmental and healthcare related crises, jeopardizing their fundamental human rights of life and security.
The vast implications for the health and well-being of present and future generations, coupled with the extreme difficulty in pursuing relief currently in the District and Appeals Courts or potentially in the COFC, presents a decidedly bleak outcome for the fate of the Grant program and the multitude of people it affected. However, groups such as the titular Appalachian Voices continue to be committed to providing Grant services for their constituents through alternate funding sources and to fighting in the courts. That being said, the legal battle in Appalachian Voices v. EPA stands as a testament to the technical legal hurdles and difficulties with political will that climate litigators face when seeking relief for their clients, and more broadly, for the future generations that will live with the consequences of contemporary decision-making.
Bio
William Anderson is a 2nd year bachelor student at Leiden University College The Hague, studying International Justice.