Document Type
Court Brief
Publication Date
2-9-2026
Abstract
In early 2025, the EPA sought to freeze grant funds that had been distributed from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction fund and then sent recipients notices purporting to terminate awards. Recipients sued in District C out, claiming that the EPA’s actions failed to comply with the APA, the US Constitution, and other generally applicable laws. In response, the government argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were contractual in nature and so, under the Tucker Act, belonged in the Court of Federal Claims.
This amicus brief to the DC Court of Appeals sitting en banc addresses the government’s argument that reinstating the grants would be the equivalent of an order of specific performance, “a classic contractual remedy.” That argument misunderstands contract remedies. An order of specific performance does not resurrect the contract. Like a damage award (the classic contractual remedy), it orders an act that substitutes for performance. The declaratory and injunctive relier plaintiffs seek are not anything like contract remedies. They are the legally required remedies when the executive tries to exercise a power but fails to comply with the laws that give it that power.
Scholarly Commons Citation
Klass, Gregory, "Brief of Amicus Curiae Contract Law Scholar Gregory Klass in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees, Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 9, 2026)." (2026). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 2693.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2693