A federal judge has vacated the Environmental Protection Agency’s cancellation of the $7 billion Solar for All program, finding that the agency exceeded its authority when it terminated grants already awarded to states, tribes and nonprofit organizations. The ruling reopens a federal program designed to expand rooftop and community solar access for lower-income households, but it does not settle when projects will resume or whether the government will appeal.

The ruling turns on grants already awarded

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy ruled Friday in Providence, Rhode Island, that EPA acted unlawfully when it rescinded 60 Solar for All awards. According to Reuters’ account of the decision, McElroy concluded that Congress’s 2025 repeal of the program’s underlying authority did not give EPA permission to undo grants that had already been obligated. She vacated the termination rather than directing a particular payment schedule.

The case was brought by the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, Solar United Neighbors, several solar companies and other plaintiffs who said they expected to benefit from projects supported by the grants. They were not themselves the 60 prime award recipients. The Associated Press reported that EPA is reviewing the decision and considering its options for an appeal, leaving the litigation and the program’s practical restart unresolved.

Congress repealed the program but left an administrative question

Solar for All was established through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act as part of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The law authorized EPA to make competitive grants for residential and community solar programs serving low-income and disadvantaged communities. The enacted statutory text appears in Public Law 117-169, which created the three-part fund and set aside $7 billion for these distributed-solar awards.

President Donald Trump signed a tax-and-spending law in July 2025 that repealed the section creating the fund and rescinded unobligated balances. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin then announced that the agency would stop implementing Solar for All, arguing that Congress had removed both the authority and remaining money needed to administer it. EPA’s current Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund page says the program was terminated in August 2025 and presents the agency’s concerns about oversight, pass-through structures and the pace of spending.

McElroy read the later law differently as it applied to awards already made. Reuters reported that she relied in part on Congress leaving more than $3 billion available for necessary administrative expenses, which she said was inconsistent with EPA’s claim that it could no longer administer the grants. The distinction is central: Congress could repeal authority for future awards and recover unobligated funds without necessarily canceling binding grants that EPA had already issued.

What the $7 billion program was designed to do

EPA selected 60 recipients in 2024, including state and territorial agencies, tribal governments, municipalities and eligible nonprofit organizations. Their plans combined rooftop solar, shared community-solar subscriptions, storage and related upgrades. The program’s national targets included serving more than 900,000 households, lowering electricity expenses and expanding access for renters and families who could not finance installations on their own. Those figures describe program goals, not benefits already delivered.

The interruption occurred while many recipients were still designing programs, hiring staff and preparing local solicitations. Michigan’s environment department, for example, says on its official MI Solar for All page that its initiative was paused after the August 2025 termination notice. Its published timeline shows planning and stakeholder engagement extending through 2025 before broader deployment, illustrating why a favorable court ruling does not instantly translate into completed solar systems.

Money and implementation remain separate disputes

Friday’s decision addresses EPA’s statutory authority to terminate the program. It does not by itself resolve every contractual or financial claim arising from the cancellation. Reuters reported that related cases seeking compensation for losses remain pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, a forum that handles many monetary claims against the federal government.

That procedural divide matters for recipients and contractors. Vacating the termination can restore the legal foundation for EPA to administer the awards, but agencies and grantees may still need to determine which work plans remain current, what expenses are allowable and when federal systems will again process disbursements. An appeal could also produce a request to pause McElroy’s ruling while a higher court reviews it.

The next test is whether projects restart

The lawsuit began in October 2025 after labor, nonprofit and solar-industry plaintiffs challenged the cancellation. At that time, Reuters reported that the plaintiffs included organizations and individuals in several states who expected jobs, lower-cost power or business opportunities from the funded programs. The court has now accepted their core argument that EPA lacked authority for a blanket termination, but operational questions remain.

The most consequential near-term signals will be whether EPA appeals, whether it seeks a stay, and whether it issues new instructions to the 60 recipients. States and tribes will then have to update schedules, procurement plans and public enrollment processes after more than a year of uncertainty. Until those steps occur, the ruling is best understood as a significant legal reopening of Solar for All—not confirmation that every promised project or household saving will materialize on its original timetable.