Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Seeking Serenity

(3,238 posts)

6. Agreed. Which is why the plaintiff Grantees have to plead their case in the Court of Federal Claims.

Reply to Martin68 (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 3, 2025, 03:03 PM

Sep 3

The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this case.

Grantees will suffer no damages, and certainly not irreparable damages, that can't be remedied by money. Thus, the Court of Federal Claims is where a lawsuit like this rightly belongs.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Appeals court sides with EPA in climate grant terminations fight [View all] BumRushDaShow Sep 2 OP

Packing the courts has paid off well for the GOP maxsolomon Sep 2 #1

The 9th Circuit is still majority (D) BumRushDaShow Sep 2 #2

This is the DC circuit FBaggins Sep 2 #3

Yup - was multi-tasking with that post (am on MIRT with a mini-troll invasion) BumRushDaShow Sep 2 #4

The rule of law must prevail or else we are lost. Martin68 Sep 2 #5

Agreed. Which is why the plaintiff Grantees have to plead their case in the Court of Federal Claims. Seeking Serenity Sep 3 #6