On his first day back in office, President Trump issued a sweeping Presidential Memorandum, suspending new or renewed wind energy leases for onshore and offshore wind, pending a review of the federal wind leasing and permitting practice. The moratorium went into effect immediately and remains in effect until review is complete or the memorandum is revoked. The memorandum offers no timeline for review, casting a cloud of uncertainty over the U.S. wind industry.
The memorandum has already caused significant disruptions, as administrative actions are being taken to align with the executive branch’s request, such as the EPA rescinding an air-quality permit for a 1,500-megawatt offshore wind project off New Jersey, and the US Department of the Interior issuing Order No. 3415, which suspends department bureaus and offices from issuing any onshore or offshore renewable energy authorization. Agencies have issued stop-work orders only to resume construction months later. As a result, developers are incurring massive losses during this regulatory flip-flop. The energy company Equinor reported a $955 million loss after construction on its Empire Wind project stalled earlier this year.
State of New York v. Trump (D. Mass. No. 1:25‑cv‑11221)
On May 5, 2025, the State of New York, joined by 16 other states, the District of Columbia, and later the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY), filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs allege that Trump’s January 2025 presidential memorandum unlawfully halted all federal wind energy permitting, jeopardizing billions in public and private investment, threatening energy reliability, and undermining state climate goals. They argue the pause violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), and the Constitution.
Court’s Most Recent Rulings on July 3, 2025:
-
The Court denied dismissal on APA claims – The Court found plaintiffs had Article III standing, including “special solicitude” for states, and adequately pleaded final agency action with plausible harm to energy goals.
-
The Court ruled that the permitting pause amounts to final agency action and may constitute a substantive rule change, potentially requiring public notice and comment under the APA. The Court allowed APA claims alleging the pause was arbitrary and capricious.
-
The Court allowed the OCSLA-based claims to proceed, citing precedent like Ensco Offshore Co. v. Salazar, which interpreted OCSLA as requiring timely agency action.
-
The Court dismissed the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Treasury from the case, finding they were not directly involved in implementing the permitting pause. The ruling narrowed the case, dismissing non-APA common law, equitable, and constitutional claims as inadequately pled.
What’s Next?
With the Court allowing the most significant legal claims to proceed, State of New York v. Trump is now positioned as a pivotal legal battle over the future of U.S. wind energy. The plaintiffs will seek a judgment invalidating the pause and compelling agencies to resume normal permitting procedures. In the meantime, developers across the country have already felt the brunt of regulatory paralysis. Major players have postponed offshore wind projects, citing policy uncertainty, inflation, steel tariffs, and the permitting freeze. Billions in investment and thousands of jobs remain in limbo.
The outcome of this case will likely determine not just whether wind permitting resumes, but whether the U.S. offshore wind industry can achieve scale in the coming decade. For more information, contact Sean Neal, Keith Gordon, or Jeff Genzer.
Article By DWGP Summer Associate Adriana Chavez – UC Davis School of Law, May 2026