On December 8, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“District Court” or “Court”) ruled to vacate orders issued by several federal agencies that had halted the issuance of all authorizations related to wind energy projects in response to President Trump’s January 20, 2025 memorandum (“Presidential Memorandum”).
The Presidential Memorandum directed federal agencies to suspend issuing all new or renewed permits, leases, and other authorizations needed to develop and operate wind energy projects until a comprehensive assessment and review of Federal wind leasing and permitting practices is completed. The Presidential Memorandum also withdrew the Outer Continental Shelf from wind energy leasing, preventing the development of new offshore wind projects and halting the renewal of existing leases. Existing leases are to be reviewed for the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any such leases and identifying legal bases for removal.
Several federal agencies, including the Departments of Commerce and Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Army Corps of Engineers (“Respondents”), ordered an immediate pause in the issuance of all wind energy authorizations (the “Wind Order”). Seventeen states, the District of Columbia, and the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (“ACE NY”) brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) challenging the Wind Order as arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law in violation of Respondents’ statutory authority.
The District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement, finding that the Wind Order constituted a final agency action that was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law, leading to the full vacatur of the Wind Order. Respondents now have until February 16, 2026, to file a notice of appeal.
Key findings of the District Court include:
Case Ripe for Court Review. While Respondents contended that the Wind Order did not constitute a final agency action, characterizing it as a mere interim decision to postpone permit decisions until the comprehensive assessment was complete, the District Court found otherwise. The Court determined that the Wind Order qualified as a final agency action subject to judicial review. It ruled that, despite being labeled temporary, the Wind Order effectively concluded Respondents' decision-making process and that it represented a de facto suspension of statutory obligations pertaining to wind energy development, thereby obstructing the plaintiffs from advancing their proposed projects.
The Wind Order is Arbitrary and Capricious. The District Court determined that although Respondents followed the directive of the Presidential Memorandum in issuing the Wind Order, their action is still subject to APA review. The Court found that Respondents failed to: (1) provide a reasoned explanation as to their change of course from decades of issuing permits related to wind energy projects; and (2) consider the reliance interests created by their previous policy of processing wind permit applications by providing the “more detailed justification” required when such serious reliance interests exist. Since Respondents failed to adequately explain their reasoning, the court found the Wind Order to be arbitrary and capricious.
The Wind Order is Contrary to Law. The Wind Order was found to violate various statutory and regulatory permitting deadlines, as well as provisions of the APA requiring reasonably expeditious agency proceedings. Even if Respondents can meet the permitting deadlines as they claim, the Wind Order would still be contrary to law since it requires an indefinite freeze on authorizations related to wind projects in contravention of APA § 555(b) requiring agencies to conclude matters presented to them within a reasonable time and APA § 558(c) requiring agencies to make licensing decisions within a reasonable time.
Because Respondents failed to adequately explain its reasoning and acted contrary to law, the District Court found vacatur without remand to be the appropriate remedy here. The Court also issued a declaratory judgement that Respondents violated the APA.
The Court’s ruling can be found here.
This update is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. Please consult your attorney for legal advice.