Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What interim court orders or injunctions, if any, have paused implementation of the DOE changes?
Executive summary
Courts have repeatedly issued interim orders that, in many cases, paused parts of Department of Energy (DOE) policy changes — but coverage in the provided documents is fragmented across different DOE actions (NEPA rule changes, indirect‑cost caps, loan‑program rules) and broader litigation over nationwide injunctions. A temporary restraining order (TRO) blocked the DOE move to cap indirect cost rates at 15% and to terminate grants, according to American Institute of Physics reporting; separate district‑court preliminary injunctions and TROs have paused government terminations of grants and other agency actions in related suits [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not present a single, comprehensive list of every interim order affecting all DOE changes (not found in current reporting).
1. What interim orders exist that directly targeted DOE grant‑cost changes
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order after DOE announced a 15% cap on university indirect cost rates and moves to terminate existing grants that didn’t meet the cap; plaintiffs argued those steps were arbitrary and retroactive, and the TRO explicitly paused the DOE action while litigation proceeded [1]. The AIP account frames that TRO as stopping immediate terminations and the cap’s retroactive effect pending judicial review [1].
2. Interim relief in related grant‑termination litigation: wider pattern
Courts elsewhere have issued TROs and preliminary injunctions preventing the government from terminating education‑related grants and pausing other agency actions. For example, district courts entered a TRO in the Department of Education grants dispute and that order survived at least an initial Supreme Court filing; such orders show a judicial willingness to halt abrupt agency terminations of grant funding while plaintiffs seek relief [2]. These cases form the legal backdrop against which DOE grant litigation is unfolding [2].
3. NEPA and DOE regulatory changes: injunctions and timing are mixed
DOE published an interim final rule in July 2025 to narrow 10 C.F.R. Part 1021 and treat many procedures as guidance; commentary and Federal Register notices note the rule took effect immediately and invited comment [4] [5]. The provided materials do not cite a specific injunction that stayed that NEPA interim rule’s implementation nationally; instead, reporting emphasizes immediate effect and subsequent public comment periods [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a judicial order halting the NEPA IFR (not found in current reporting).
4. Courts, “universal” injunctions, and how that affects DOE litigation
Multiple sources describe a legal battle over nationwide or universal injunctions — district courts issued many preliminary nationwide injunctions pausing Trump administration agency policies, and the Supreme Court later limited lower courts’ authority to issue universal injunctions [6] [7]. That doctrinal shift affects whether judges can stay DOE policies nationwide versus only as to parties before them, meaning some pockets of relief for plaintiffs might be narrowed even if preliminary orders were initially issued [7] [8].
5. Government strategy and litigation posture: stays, emergency applications, and appeals
The executive branch repeatedly sought stays and emergency relief from higher courts to lift district‑court injunctions in multiple cases; commentators and trackers document applications to the Supreme Court and appellate stays across agency challenges [9] [10]. That pattern suggests DOE actions paused by district courts may face active government efforts to undo interim relief, producing a shifting landscape of who remains covered by a particular injunction [9] [10].
6. What’s clear — and what remains uncertain
Clear: at least one federal judge issued a TRO specifically halting DOE’s 15% indirect‑cost cap and threatened terminations [1]. Unclear: there is no single authoritative list in these sources that catalogs every interim order touching all DOE rulemakings (not found in current reporting). The NEPA interim final rule was published and made effective July 3, 2025, and sources do not show a parallel nationwide injunction blocking that IFR in the provided documents [4] [5].
7. Practical implications for universities, grantees, and projects
Where TROs or preliminary injunctions exist, DOE cannot immediately enforce the challenged changes against plaintiffs or, in some cases, more broadly; but success and scope vary by court and are subject to appeals and Supreme Court intervention [1] [7]. Parties affected by DOE actions should monitor specific case dockets and higher‑court orders, because nationwide relief that once paused multiple agency changes has been constrained by recent judicial rulings [7] [10].
If you want, I can compile the specific case names, court dockets, and public filing dates mentioned in these sources so you can track each injunction’s current status.