Three nonprofits that won awards under the EPA's $7 billion Solar for All program are suing the federal government. They are not asking a judge to restart the program. They are asking to be paid. Growth Opportunity Partners, which led a coalition holding a $156 million award, Inclusive Prosperity Capital, with a $249.3 million award, and the Center for Rural Affairs, with a $62.4 million award, have each filed breach of contract claims in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, a specialized court most nonprofit boards have never discussed. The most recent claim landed in late July.
How these cases got here says a lot about where every federal grantee now stands, so it is worth walking through the mechanics.
The Program Was Fully Awarded, Then Terminated
Solar for All was a $7 billion competition under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. The EPA selected 60 awardees, mostly states and nonprofits, with the stated goal of putting solar savings in reach of more than 900,000 lower-income households.
In July 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Section 60002 of that law did two things: it repealed the Clean Air Act section that created the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and it rescinded the fund's unobligated balances. In August 2025 the EPA terminated the Solar for All grant agreements, taking the position that the repeal had eliminated its authority to administer the program.
The Case Turns on the Word Obligated
The grantees' core argument is narrow. The rescission reached only unobligated funds. Their awards, they say, were already obligated: signed, executed, and in many cases being drawn down. On that reading, an obligated award is a binding commitment that survived the repeal of the program's authorizing section, and the EPA canceled agreements the government was still bound by. Members of Congress said as much at the time; the Columbia Law School climate litigation blog collects the legislative history. The government has not conceded the point, and no court has ruled on the merits as of early August 2026. But the distinction doing the work here is one every grants manager already tracks: obligation is the government's binding commitment of funds, and it is not the same thing as disbursement. Money can be obligated to you that has never touched your bank account.
Why the Fight Is Happening in a Contract Court
The venue is the other lesson. In April 2025, the Supreme Court signaled in Department of Education v. California that when a grantee's real complaint is that the government owes it money under an award, the case generally belongs in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, not in a federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act.
That routing has consequences. The Court of Federal Claims awards damages; it does not order agencies to restore programs. So the Solar for All grantees there are seeking the value of their awards. A coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed its own pair of suits, one in the same claims court for damages and one in district court on constitutional and administrative theories, and a judge has already ruled that the states' dispute belongs in the claims court too. For a nonprofit deciding how to respond to a termination, the lesson is the same either way: what remedy you want helps determine which courthouse you can use, and a claim filed in the wrong one can be dismissed before anyone reads the merits.
What to Do While You Still Have the Grant
Most of the protection in these cases was built long before anyone sued, and none of it required a lawyer on staff.
Read the termination provision in your award documents. The uniform guidance at 2 CFR 200.340 recognizes four routes: termination for noncompliance, by mutual agreement, on the recipient's own initiative with written notice, or under the award's terms and conditions, including, to the extent authorized by law, where the award no longer effectuates program goals or agency priorities. That last ground carries a qualifier for a reason; whether priorities-based terminations are lawful is part of what this litigation contests. Which grounds your award incorporates, and what notice they require, is written into your specific agreement, not into a general rule.
Keep the paper. The notice of award, the executed agreement, amendments, drawdown records, and every communication about the award's status are what turn "the government committed to this" from a feeling into a filing. The Solar for All claims are built on exactly that record.
If a termination notice arrives, get the stated reason in writing, note every deadline in the notice, keep spending decisions conservative, and get advice early about which forum fits the relief you actually need. Outcomes here turn on your award's terms and your facts, and this is not legal advice for your situation.
Finally, watch the rulebook itself. The administration's proposed overhaul of the federal grant rules would rewrite termination and enforcement provisions across the board, so the clause you read today may not be the clause in your next award.
The Takeaway
A federal award is a commitment, and grantees are learning to enforce it the way contractors always have: in the Court of Federal Claims, with the paperwork doing the talking. The word obligated carries the argument, the choice of forum decides the remedy, and the records you keep now decide whether you would ever have a case at all. File your award documents like they are contracts. Functionally, they are.