Court Strikes Down Biden-era Energy Requirement 

Texas challenged the rule, arguing it threatened the availability of affordable housing.

A federal court has struck down a Biden-era rule that imposed “green energy” requirements for new housing constructions, threatening the availability of affordable housing.

The case, co-led with Utah, was argued by Attorney General Ken Paxton in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Tyler. “The Corrupt Biden Administration’s radical policies were reducing the availability of affordable homes and making it harder for Americans to achieve the dream of homeownership,” stated Paxton. “This ruling is a major victory for homebuyers, builders, and families and helps protect access to affordable housing.”

Some of the “stricter energy-efficiency building codes” required by the Biden-era rule included the installation of stronger insulation, higher-efficiency windows, and upgraded HVAC systems. All would have increased construction costs for housing financed by FHA-insured mortgages, USDA rural housing loans, and other venues that rely on federal assistance. Plaintiffs argued that the new rules would violate the Affordable Housing Act, as the cost of implementation “would severely limit affordable low-income housing.”

Not only did the court find that the rule would reduce the availability of affordable housing due to increased construction costs, but it also found that the rule exceeded both agencies’ statutory authority.

Following this ruling, the 2024 energy standards have been vacated and are no longer in effect.

Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

A wonderful victory for America. Paxton is the real deal in court.

Why did this even go to court? Why didn't the Trump administration simply rescind the rule?

I asked Grok these two questions. Here's what it had to say (the final paragraph is a good summary):

The Biden-era rule in question was a 2024 final regulation jointly issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It required new homes financed through federal programs (such as FHA-insured mortgages, USDA rural housing loans, and other assisted housing initiatives) to meet stricter energy-efficiency standards, including updated 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ASHRAE requirements for insulation, windows, building envelopes, HVAC systems, and more.

The lawsuit (State of Utah v. Todman, No. 6:25-cv-00001) was filed on or around January 2, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division). It was brought by a coalition of 15 Republican-led states (led by Utah and Texas) plus the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). They argued that the rule:

Exceeded the agencies’ statutory authority under Section 109 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (which they interpreted as allowing only one update to the energy standards baseline — already done in 2015). Failed to properly account for (and in fact contradicted) the law’s requirement that any updates must not reduce the availability or affordability of housing (the agencies’ own analysis showed potential cost increases that could limit new construction).

On March 6–9, 2026, Judge Jeremy Kernodle vacated the rule in full, agreeing with the plaintiffs on both statutory and APA (Administrative Procedure Act) grounds.

Why it went to court instead of the Trump administration simply rescinding the rule

The Trump administration did not simply rescind the rule via executive action for several practical and legal reasons:

The lawsuit was already filed and pending — The suit was initiated right at the start of the new administration (January 2025). Once a challenge is in federal court, the executive branch cannot unilaterally stop the judicial process; the judge decides whether to dismiss, stay, or rule on the merits.

The Trump DOJ asked the court to dismiss the case as unripe — Rather than defend the Biden rule on the merits, the administration told Judge Kernodle that it was already “in the process of reconsidering” the standards, had put implementation on hold, and was planning to address it through normal rulemaking. They urged the court to stay out of it for now. The judge declined and ruled anyway. Formal rescission under the APA is slow and burdensome — Even a friendly administration cannot instantly “rescind” a finalized regulation. It must:

- Issue a new proposed rule explaining the reasons for repeal. - Allow a public comment period (typically 30–60+ days). Conduct cost-benefit analysis.

- Publish a final rule.

This process often takes 6–18 months and can itself be challenged in court. A judicial vacatur is faster, cleaner, and more permanent.

Strategic and precedential value — The plaintiffs (and apparently the court) wanted a binding ruling that the agencies lacked statutory authority to impose a second update and that affordability must be prioritized. A court decision sets nationwide precedent and prevents a future administration from simply re-issuing a similar rule without new legislation. A mere rescission could be reversed by the next president.

In short, the case reached court because states and homebuilders sued early in 2025 to get an immediate, definitive block. The Trump administration was actively trying to unwind the rule administratively and even asked the judge to step aside — but the court chose to resolve the legal questions on the merits instead. The result is the same (the rule is gone), but the judicial route provided a stronger, faster, and more lasting outcome.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.