Employee of a solar panel installation company on the roof during the assembly of a photovoltaic system installation
by Adam Earl King, F25 Environmental Clinic Student
Solar for All (SFA) was a $7 billion program designed to build out solar for low-income communities across the US.1 SFA was part of the larger $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRRF) passed under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).2 In July 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) repealed GGRF and rescinded the “unobligated balances of accounts made to carry out [GGRF].”3 All of SFA’s funding was obligated nearly a year before OBBBA.4 Nevertheless, EPA announced the end of SFA funding in August 2025.5
The legal response has been swift. The Southern Environmental Law Center, Harris County, and a coalition of states have all filed suit.6 Absent from these suits (albeit understandably) are claims brought under the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD).
MQD, a famously loose and unsettled point of law,7 states that agencies cannot act on questions of vast economic and political significance without a clear congressional directive.8
As with many actions from the Trump administration, cancelling SFA was an unprecedented, power-inflating step taken in the name of government reduction.9 While MQD has traditionally been used to limit an agency’s ability to create new programs,10 not axe them, MQD’s malleability might allow it to cut both directions. If successfully expanded, MQD would become a moderating tool to stop agency whiplash by preventing both over and under regulation that are out of step with congressional intent.
While environmentalists may be wary of MQD due to its past usage as a tool for agency reduction,11 SFA may be a prime candidate to get MQD to cut both ways. This is thanks to GGRF being subject to two partially conflicting congressional directives—IRA (implementation) and OBBBA (partial recission).
The argument for striking down EPA’s rescission of SFA would roughly take this form:
- SFA, and its subsequent cancellation, is a major question because it is a program of vast economic and political significance.
- Congress did not clearly mandate the recission of SFA funding in OBBBA.
This argument, however, must overcome two main challenges.12 First, it could be argued that SFA is not a major question. Second, one could argue that MQD only applies to expansions of agency programs, not to reductions/recissions of agency programs.
On the first issue, one may argue that SFA is too small to invoke MQD; $7 billion for low-income communities, in the grand scheme of national policy, is insignificant. This point could be refuted on the factual merits; $7 billion is a significant enough number, the program was administered nationwide, and it has attracted significant political attention and controversy.
However, there is a unique chance here to invoke the two-statute nature of the SFA issue. Because Congress first mandated SFA under IRA, does a repeal heavily weigh in favor of finding a major question? Considering the weight behind congressional directives, the courts may be more inclined to apply MQD to recissions, holding that recission of past congressional action can only be done by later congressional action, not by agencies.
On the second issue, one may argue that rescinding a program does not violate MQD because recission limits power, while MQD was only meant to stop expansions of power. This point could be refuted on the history of MQD and on what the definition of “power” is.
MQD has historically been used to limit agency power.13 It can be argued, however, that this is not because MQD only works one direction. Rather, MQD has been applied this way because over-expansion is simply much more common than over-reduction.
Defining “power” is also important. MQD, at its core, seems to ask if an agency usurped Congress’ policy-making power on a topic of vast economic and political significance. It does not merely ask how much power an agency has to regulate or how big an agency is. Thus, if an agency answered a major question without delegated authority from Congress, MQD should apply no matter the mere effect on agency size.14
MQD is a powerful tool to limit an agency’s ability to go rogue. While novel, a claim that rescinding SFA invokes MQD would help ensure that agencies do not violate their congressionally set bounds in either direction.
1 EPA Contemplating Purported Termination of All $7 Billion in Solar for All Grants, FOLEY HOAG (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/publications/alerts-and-updates/2025/august/epa-contemplating-purported-termination-of-all-$7-billion-in-solar-for-all-grants/.
2 Id.
3 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, 119th Cong. § 60002 (2025) (emphasis added).
4 Kelsey Misbrener, Solar for All beneficiaries sue EPA for terminating program, SOLAR POWER WORLD (Oct. 6, 2025), https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2025/10/solar-for-all-beneficiaries-sue-epa-for-terminating-program/.
5 Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin), X (Aug. 7, 2025), https://x.com/epaleezeldin/status/1953518426602803684.
6 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Demand for Jury Trial, Rhode Island AFL-CIO v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-00510 (D.R.I Oct. 6, 2025), https://www.selc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-10-06-Filed-Complaint.pdf; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Harris Cnty., Tex. v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-03646 (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2025), https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:va6c2:8a28b933-b58e-41d1-9326-fb39f4dbc0e9?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover; Complaint, Arizona v. EPA, No. 2:25-cv-02015 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2025), https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Solar%20for%20All%20Complaint.pdf.
7 See DAN WOLFF & OLIVIA VENUS, THE METAMORPHOSIS OF THE MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE, L. 360 (July 21,2025), https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/694cd599-0776-4026-90f9-a33209d8b0d4/?context=1530671.
8 Util. Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014).
9 See Zeldin, supra note 5.
10 See WOLFF & VENUS, supra note 7.
11 See, e.g., Util Air Regulatory Group, 573 U.S. at 325-26; West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 735 (2022).
12 There is also a third issue of how applicable MQD is after Loper Bright overturned Chevron deference, the original motivation for adopting MQD. See WOLFF & VENUS, supra note 7.
13 See WOLFF & VENUS, supra note 7.
14 Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477, 482 (2023), while not a perfect fit, is instructive for SFA because the Court used MQD to strike down loan cancellation. Loan cancellation is arguably a reduction of agency size and of power of a federal program.
The articles published on this site reflect the views of the individual authors only. They do not represent the views of the Environmental Clinic, The University of Texas School of Law, or The University of Texas at Austin.