New York v. Trump

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that federal agencies’ orders pausing all wind energy authorizations (the “Wind Order”) were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The agencies issued the Wind Order to implement a memorandum issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025. As threshold matters, the court found that both the state plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY) had constitutional standing and that their claims were within the zone of interests of the statutory provisions at issue, which set forth timelines and standards for wind energy permitting. On the merits, the court found that the Wind Order was a final agency action subject to judicial review and that it was both arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act imposing a nondiscretionary duty on agencies to pass upon matters presented to them and to complete any mandated adjudicatory hearings within a reasonable time. The court rejected the agencies’ argument that arbitrary-and-capricious review did not apply because they merely took action as directed by the President. The court vacated the Wind Order in its entirety.

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss claims challenging Trump administration actions halting federal approvals for offshore and onshore wind energy projects. The case was brought by 17 states and the District of Columbia. Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY) intervened as a plaintiff. The surviving claims allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that federal agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously by imposing a “categorical and indefinite halt on wind-related projects without a reasoned basis”; by “disregarding extra-statutory review procedures” required for federal permitting and approvals of wind energy projects; and by failing to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking for the pause on approvals. The defendants argued the states and ACE NY lacked Article III standing, but the court found the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient harm and noted that the state plaintiffs qualified for “special solicitude”; the court also found that the traceability and redressability of the harm had been “firmly established.” The court dismissed common law ultra vires, equitable, and constitutional claims, finding that the APA claims were a better fit and concluding that “extremely high standard” for ultra vires claims was not met. The court also dismissed Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act citizen suit claims.

On May 5, 2025, New York, 16 other states, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s Inauguration Day presidential memorandum that halted federal approvals for offshore and onshore wind energy projects, as well as agency actions implementing the memorandum. The plaintiffs alleged that President Trump’s directive “has stopped most wind-energy development in its tracks,” and that the directive and agency defendants’ “categorical and indefinite halt on federal wind-energy approvals” jeopardized “ the continued development of a power source critical to the States’ economic vitality, energy mix, public health, and climate goals.” The complaint asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act against the federal agency defendants, as well as an equitable claim that federal officials violated federal laws governing permits and approvals for wind energy projects. The complaint also asserted a common law ultra vires claim against all defendants, including the President, and a citizen suit claim against Department of Interior defendants under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.