Judicial Challenge to Onshore and Offshore Wind Projects Moves Forward
On June 18, 2025, the District Court of Massachusetts allowed a coalition of 17 states, the District of Columbia, and an environmental advocacy organization to proceed with a lawsuit against a Presidential Memorandum ("Memorandum") seeking to temporarily suspend "new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects." The lawsuit emerges as several states continue to invest in offshore wind projects to achieve their renewable energy goals as part of efforts to address climate change.
The plaintiffs initially sought a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of the Memorandum. Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the government's action pausing wind-energy development violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). In response, defendants argued the plaintiffs' claims are "nothing more than a policy disagreement" over energy preferences. The government alleged the plaintiffs failed to identify a final agency action, since the Memorandum merely directs federal agencies to temporarily pause the issuance of authorizations while the administration reviews wind leasing and permitting practices. Defendants also contended that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate an actual concrete and redressable injury caused by the temporary suspension.
The district court abstained from deciding whether to issue the preliminary injunction. Instead, the court asked for more details about the alleged harm caused by the Memorandum and set a new hearing in which it would treat the defendants' opposition motion for a preliminary injunction as a motion to dismiss. The abstention illustrates how the plaintiffs must clearly demonstrate that the challenged federal agency action directly caused concrete and tangible harm to particular projects for courts to consider energy-related regulatory claims.
Following a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs can pursue their claims that the Memorandum was arbitrary and capricious and exceeds executive authority in violation of the APA.
The district court highlighted two key findings relevant to challenges to federal actions regulating energy and the environment. First, the district court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged concrete and redressable injuries in their lawsuit. According to the court, the plaintiffs who invoke their procedural rights under the APA need only allege "some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant." Since agency defendants "acknowledge[d] that at least some of the states allege[d] harms related to specific projects in the course of the permitting process," the court found that such acknowledgement was enough to establish that there is "some possibility" of redressability and sufficient concrete injuries caused by the Memorandum.
Second, the district court found that the Memorandum's "indefinite pause on wind energy leasing and permitting, as alleged, constitutes final agency action." In short, even though the government claimed that the Memorandum merely functioned as a temporary and intermediate pause on authorizations, the district court assessed that the actual legal effect of the hold amounted to a "de-facto final" agency action.
Despite the favorable ruling for the plaintiffs, the judge noted that pursuing claims to halt the implementation of the Memorandum may not matter if federal agencies ultimately decide not to issue the permits. The court's statement indicates the uphill battle states may face as they seek to challenge the Trump administration's executive directives regulating energy and the environment. In this case, the plaintiff states are still fighting, as shown by their motion for summary judgment. Even if the district court allows the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims against the Memorandum, federal agencies may still deny approvals for wind projects.
This case highlights the recent trend by certain states to challenge the Trump administration's executive orders regulating energy and the environment. Another case was brought by 16 states and the District of Columbia in early May, suing to halt the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate the EV mandate and pause all federal funding for EV infrastructure under Executive Order 14154, "Unleashing American Energy." The district court in that case granted a preliminary injunction in part, but denied injunctive relief for the District of Columbia, Minnesota, and Vermont for failure to adequately demonstrate "irreparable harm that would befall them absent injunctive relief." Additionally, 15 states filed suit challenging Executive Order 14156, "Declaring a National Energy Emergency," alleging that the government unlawfully used "emergency permitting procedures" to "bypass critical ecological, historical, and cultural resource review." Although the merits of the cases remain to be litigated, these suits will be yet another indicator of what additional legal hurdles U.S. states may face as they object to the administration's sweeping push to move away from renewable energy.
Read the full Climate Report.
