TLDRs;
Contents
- A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from withholding EV charger funds, citing legislative overreach.
- The ruling revives billions in infrastructure funding for 14 states.
- States argued the freeze would derail climate targets and harm rural communities.
- The decision underscores limits on executive power over congressional appropriations.
A federal judge in Seattle has issued a major legal setback to the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze billions of dollars in electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure funds, ruling that the move likely violated the constitutional separation of powers.
In a strongly worded opinion, U.S. District Judge Tana Lin sided with a coalition of 14 states that had challenged the administration’s decision to halt disbursements from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, which was authorized by Congress.
The ruling follows months of mounting legal pressure after the Department of Transportation suspended funding in early 2025, citing a need to reassess state implementation plans. Several states, led by Washington, California, and Colorado, argued that the freeze was unlawful, asserting that the executive branch had no authority to block spending already approved by Congress. The judge’s decision supports that claim, calling the administration’s move a likely breach of the Impoundment Control Act, which limits executive power to delay or withhold appropriated funds.
Court Rebukes executive Overreach in Funding Dispute
Judge Lin’s opinion emphasized the need to maintain the constitutional balance between the legislative and executive branches. By attempting to unilaterally withhold money already appropriated by Congress, the administration overstepped its authority, she wrote. While the ruling is preliminary and subject to appeal, it allows the funding to resume in the 14 plaintiff states, providing immediate relief to infrastructure projects that had been stalled.
This legal skirmish is part of a broader tug-of-war over control of the country’s climate and transportation policies. The case could set precedent for future disputes over executive discretion in handling congressionally mandated programs. Legal analysts note that courts have historically sided with Congress when the executive tries to block spending without explicit legislative authorization.
States Emerge as Key Defenders of Green Investment
The plaintiffs, which include states with some of the most ambitious EV targets, had warned that halting the funds would jeopardize critical infrastructure projects. Washington, for instance, stood to lose over $70 million earmarked for expanding its EV charging network. New York, meanwhile, relies on NEVI funding to help reach its goal of putting three million EVs on the road by 2030.
With the federal government pulling back, states have increasingly become the last line of defense for environmental initiatives. Attorneys general leading the suit described the ruling as a vital step in ensuring that clean energy transitions remain on track, especially in underserved communities where private investment remains scarce.
Funding Freeze Threatened U.S. EV Adoption
The NEVI program, backed by $5 billion in federal funds, was created to address one of the biggest barriers to EV adoption, a lack of accessible and reliable charging infrastructure. The United States has lagged behind other countries in building out this critical network.
As of 2022, EVs made up just 6 percent of new car sales in the U.S., compared to 14 percent globally. Industry analysts have consistently identified insufficient public charging as a primary obstacle to wider adoption, especially in rural and low-income areas.
Projections from the Energy Information Administration suggest EVs could account for up to 29 percent of new vehicle sales by 2050, but only if infrastructure keeps pace with consumer demand. Legal and financial uncertainties such as the recent funding freeze risk derailing that progress, industry experts warn.
Constitutional Issues Ripple Beyond EV’s
Although the case centers on electric vehicle funding, its implications are constitutional at their core. Legal observers point out that the judge’s decision reinforces a longstanding principle, the executive branch cannot override the will of Congress when it comes to federal spending. The ruling adds to a pattern of judicial decisions that have checked efforts by presidents from both parties to redirect or withhold funds without congressional consent.
In the meantime, states will move forward with long-delayed infrastructure projects, buoyed by the court’s affirmation of their legal standing. For now, the ruling is not only a win for EV advocates, but a broader victory for constitutional governance.
