A federal judge’s late January ruling that vacated the U.S. Department of Transportation’s suspension of the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program has restored binding authority for state electric vehicle charging projects and crystallized a larger question for transportation agencies and contractors: How stable are federal infrastructure dollars a once authorized?
The dispute stems from a February 6, 2025 directive issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) suspending approval of state NEVI deployment plans and halting new program obligations.
In her final ruling, Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington wrote on Jan. 23 that the directive and related guidance are “RELEASED and WITHDRAWN in their entirety.”
The court considered the suspension “violated[s] the Law of Administrative Procedure because [it is] above legal authority,” is “arbitrary and capricious” and “is not in accordance with law and without observance of the procedure required by law.”
Operationally, the ruling goes beyond political disagreement. It prohibits USDOT and FHWA from “withholding or withdrawing” NEVI funds for previously approved state plans and “refusing to review and/or process requests for authorization to obligate funds” unless permitted by statute and regulation.
Judge Lin required notice of the ruling to the responsible administrators within five days, and on January 28, the Justice Department informed the court that written notice had been served on USDOT and that “all relevant parties have since been served with the Court’s order.”
As of Feb. 23, court records do not reflect a notice of appeal filed; USDOT did not respond to questions about whether it intends to do so by press time.
Looking for quick answers on construction and engineering topics?
Try Ask ENR, our new intelligent AI search tool.
Ask ENR →
For at least one large state, the practical effect was immediate: “Yes, obligation and reimbursement resumed after 1/23. No impact on projects,” Ryan LaFontaine, media relations manager for the Texas Department of Transportation, wrote in an email.
With the bond and refund process resuming in Texas, the short-term disruption appears contained at least in that jurisdiction, but the reasoning behind the ruling, and parallel litigation involving other programs administered by the Jobs and Infrastructure Investment Act (IIJA), underscores that the limits of executive pause authority remain under active judicial review.
RELATED
The court ruling reopens the NEVI funds, restarting electric vehicle charging projects
Administrative controls
For IIJA programs administered through the Federal Aid Highway Framework, including NEVI and the Freight and Fuel Infrastructure (CFI) program, funds do not automatically move from statute to construction. They move through defined administrative checkpoints: federal approval, authorization of obligations and, in the case of discretionary awards, execution of grant agreements.
Each checkpoint determines whether authorized dollars translate into reimbursable, contract-supported work.
Under NEVI, states must submit annual deployment plans for FHWA approval before proceeding with corridor construction. When the February 6 directive suspended those approvals, that door was effectively closed. Judge Lin’s vacancy reopened it.
For agencies sequencing multi-year EV corridor deployments, even a temporary halt in the approval stage can compress lease windows, delay purchase packaging, and alter capital programming assumptions.
Mandatory authority is the hinge between congressional authorization and reimbursable project spending. Without federal authorization to obligate funds, states cannot secure repayment under federal aid rules. Judge Lin’s order directly addressed this hinge, prohibiting the FHWA from refusing to review or process permit applications for previously approved NEVI plans.
The ruling aligns with a determination by the Government Accountability Office that DOT “is not authorized to retain [FY 2022 through 2025 NEVI] Funds from the expenditures and DOT must continue to meet the statutory requirements of the program.” GAO concluded that the suspension violated the Reservoir Control Act.
Although Judge Lin’s decision is based on Administrative Procedure Act and statutory authority grounds, the GAO separately framed the issue as involving Congress’s purse-string power under the Packaging Control Act.
Pauses in the permitting stage can introduce uncertainty into bid timing, contractor cash flow planning and reimbursement schedules, risks that state transportation officials have previously warned about.
RELATED
Closing delay increases risk around unused IIJA funds
Parallel exposure in CFI litigation
Parallel litigation over the IFC’s discretionary grant program highlights similar vulnerabilities on the competitive side of IIJA transportation financing.
In a complaint filed on December 16, 2025 in the Western District of Washington, Climate Solutions, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council allege that the FHWA refused to award new CFI grants, refused to execute grant agreements for previously announced awardees, and refused to enter into new obligations under existing grants.
According to the complaint, Congress authorized $300 million in FY22, $400 million in FY23, $500 million in FY24, $600 million in FY25 and $700 million in FY26 for the program.
The plaintiffs claim that only a fraction of the awarded funds had been obligated by January 20, 2025, effectively leaving more than $1.5 billion at a standstill.
The court has set a pretrial schedule that requires opening disclosures in March, indicating that the case is finally picking up steam.
For project sponsors and contractors, the distinction between an announced award and an executed grant agreement supported by obligated funds is critical. Agreement execution and entry of obligations determine when procurements move from paper commitments to contracting authority.
Just Security’s litigation tracker identifies a small group of IIJA landmark cases under its category for state attorney general challenges to temporary pauses in federal grant programs, including the NEVI litigation. NEVI is the clearest example of a transport formula to receive a final vacancy decision within this cluster. Whether similar clarity emerges in discretionary programs remains to be seen.
RELATED
US DOT awards $623 million for electric vehicle charging stations
Stability, not politics, is the question for industry
Judge Tana Lin, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Image: Wikipedia
For public contractors and owners, the central issue is not electric vehicle policy but predictability.
Federal-aid highway funding administered under the IIJA moves through defined administrative checkpoints. When these checkpoints are paused, even temporarily, acquisition schedules, payback time and pricing assumptions may change.
Judge Lin’s ruling reopens the NEVI pipeline and at least one major state confirms that obligations and repayments have resumed. But parallel litigation over discretionary IIJA programs demonstrates that the outer limits of executive pause authority continue to be tested.
For an industry that depends on multi-year capital programming and stable reimbursement streams, the durability of this cap, between authorized funding and executive disruption, will shape procurement stability for the remainder of the IIJA authorization cycle.
