The Federal agency or pass-through entity may implement specific conditions if the recipient or subrecipient fails to comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, or terms and conditions of the Federal award. See § 200.208 for additional information on specific conditions. When the Federal agency or pass-through entity determines that noncompliance cannot be remedied by imposing specific conditions, the Federal agency or pass-through entity may take one or more of the following actions:
(a) Temporarily withhold payments until the recipient or subrecipient takes corrective action.
(b) Disallow costs for all or part of the activity associated with the noncompliance of the recipient or subrecipient.
(c) Suspend or terminate the Federal award in part or in its entirety.
(d) Initiate suspension or debarment proceedings as authorized in 2 CFR part 180 and the Federal agency's regulations, or for pass-through entities, recommend suspension or debarment proceedings be initiated by the Federal agency.
(e) Withhold further Federal funds (new awards or continuation funding) for the project or program.
(f) Pursue other legally available remedies.
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Educ. v. California, 604 U.S. 650 (2025).
“, 2 CFR §§200.339 , 200.208(c) (permitting grant termination only after an agency “determines that noncompliance cannot be reme- died by imposing additional conditions,” such as by “[r]equiring additional project monitoring,” by requiring that the recipient obtain technical or…”
Gateway Dev. Comm'n v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2026).
· cites it 4× “” 2 C.F.R. § 200.339 . An agency may impose “specific conditions” to remedy the violation, or, if the agency “determines that noncompliance cannot be remedied by imposing specific conditions,” the agency may take one or more of a series of actions including “[t]emporarily…”
Urban Sustainability Directors Network v. United States Dep't of Agric. (D.D.C. 2025).
· cites it 3× “failed to “identify or rely on any specific new evidence about the award that demonstrates the award no longer effectuates the priorities it was initially intended to serve,” and that defendants failed to “inform awardees prior to termination of any noncompliance with the…”
Porwancher v. Nat'l Endowment for the Humanities (D.D.C. 2025).
· cites it 2× “2 C.F.R. § 200.339 (c) (2020). The NEH also “must provide the [recipient] an opportunity to object and provide information and documentation challenging the suspension or termination action, in accordance with written processes and procedures published by [NEH].”
Eder v. City of Burleson (N.D. Tex. 2024).
“Considering relevant provisions of 2 C.F.R. § 200.339 (2020) ad- ditional conditions and remedies “may” be imposed when the Federal awarding entity determines there grant recipient is not compliant with law, regulations, or terms or conditions of the award, there is no…”
Kehl v. Allegheny Cnty. (W.D. Pa. 2024).
“See 2 C.F.R. § 200.339 . Accordingly, dismissal with prejudice is also warranted to the extent Mr.”
Power Forward Communities, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A. (D.D.C. 2025).
“The termination letter states that the termination was pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.339 and § 200.340 and “based on substantial concerns regarding program integrity, the award process, programmatic fraud, waste, and abuse, and misalignment with the Agency’s priorities, which…”
Power Forward Communities, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A. (D.D.C. 2025).
“The termination letter states that the termination was pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.339 and § 200.340 and “based on substantial concerns regarding program integrity, the award process, programmatic fraud, waste, and abuse, and misalignment with the Agency’s priorities, which…”
Louisiana Delta Serv. Corps v. Corp. for Nat'l & Cmty. Serv. (M.D. La. 2025).
“) However, these grant terms and conditions direct the organizations back to the same regulatory provisions Plaintiff cites, stating that the award may be terminated “in accordance” with 2 C.F.R. § 200.339 , which outlines remedies for noncompliance, and with 2 C.”
— 2 C.F.R. § 200.339(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.