Wins for Offshore Wind: NY et. al. v. Trump et. al.

On December 8, 2025, Judge Patti B. Saris of the District of Massachusetts, issued a powerful and resounding decision affirming law, science, and national energy interests. Judge Saris struck down the Trump Administration’s government-wide suspension of all new wind energy authorizations that arose from the January 20, 2025 Presidential Memorandum, Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.

This sweeping action halted progress for both onshore and offshore wind, stalled critical climate and wildlife-friendly energy solutions, and jeopardized billions in public and private investment. Section 2 of the Presidential Memorandum, halted all leasing and permitting of wind energy development pending an indefinite comprehensive assessment of impacts.

Fighting Back for Wind Energy

On May 5, 2025, seventeen states and the District of Columbia, joined by Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY), challenged the implementation of Section 2 of the Presidential Memorandum, referred to by Judge Saris as the “Wind Order,” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). At the outset of the litigation, the National Wildlife Federation and nine other environmental organizations filed a joint amicus brief in support of overturning the unlawful suspension. Together, we highlighted that the United States cannot afford indefinite paralysis on renewable energy.

Judge Saris’ decision is clear, meticulous, and deeply consequential. She found that the Wind Order was arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and unsupported by the reasoned decision-making the APA demands. Judge Saris’ decision finds that both the state plaintiffs and ACE NY have standing.

She underscores the weakness of the government’s argument with a literary flourish, quoting Don Quixote, stating, “Agency Defendants contend that ACE NY has failed to specify any member with standing. In mounting this challenge, the Agency Defendants are ‘tilting at windmills.’” 

The Court affirmed what states, industry, and environmental organizations have demonstrated for months: the Wind Order inflicted real and immediate harm. States had invested millions, with Massachusetts alone pouring significant resources into offshore wind development in 2024.

New Jersey stood poised to receive nearly $2 billion in economic benefits from the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind project. Developers paid rental fees on leases they could not advance. Supply chain companies lost work, contracts, and momentum. All the while, ratepayers were denied the lower, more stable, energy costs that renewable wind power can deliver. 

Judge Saris concludes that the Wind Order is a final agency action subject to the APA by stating that “…the Wind Order, despite being ‘characteriz[ed]…as an interim’ undertaking, is the final word from the [A]gency [Defendants] on what will happen up to the time of any different permanent decision resulting from the Comprehensive Assessment.” She concludes that the Wind Order amounts to a “de facto suspension of the law with respect to wind energy development.”

Judge Saris states, “more than ten months after the Wind Order instituted a ‘temporary’ pause on the issuance of the wind energy authorizations, no end to the Comprehensive Assessment appears to be in sight.”

Calling Out Baseless Decisions

Judge Saris rejected the argument that agencies can evade APA review simply by invoking presidential instruction by dissecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Orr. That case, she notes, exemplifies distinguished situations where Congress has expressly vested the President with exclusive authority to prescribe a rule. Judge Saris cites to the Ninth Circuit, “insulating an agency action from arbitrary-and-capricious review in such a circumstance would undermine the APA and ‘shockingly allow Presidents to insulate any desired rulemaking from judicial review with the single stroke of an executive pen.’ (Nebraska v. Su, 121 F. 4th at 15 (9th Cir. 2024)).” 

In conclusion, Judge Saris finds that, “because Congress has not committed to a sole discretion of the President the ability to suspend wind energy authorizations, the ‘usually applicable’ arbitrary and capricious standard of the APA governs…” The Court demonstrates how the Agency Defendants have not satisfied the APA standard, finding the “scant administrative record makes clear, and the Agency Defendants do not meaningfully dispute, that the Agency Defendants have not “reasonably considered the relevant issues and reasonably explained the[ir] decision” to implement the Wind Order.”

Judge Saris calls out the Agency Defendants’ candor in admitting they halted permit issuance solely because the President said so, and bluntly concludes, “whatever level of explanation is required when deviating from longstanding agency practice, this is not it.” 

The Court identifies that even if specific processing deadlines are met, the Wind Order directs agencies to violate two APA provisions: (1) “within a reasonable time, [an] agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it,” and (2) “‘[w]hen application is made for a license required by law, [an] agency,…within a reasonable time, shall set and complete proceedings required to be conducted in accordance with’ procedures governing formal adjudications ‘or other proceedings required by law and shall make its decision.’”

In the decision’s pièce de résistance, Judge Saris concludes that, “the proof is in the pudding: No permits have issued since the Wind Order was promulgated, and the Agency Defendants acknowledge that they will not issue any permits at least until they complete the Comprehensive Assessment, for which there is no timeline. …For these reasons, in addition to being arbitrary and capricious, the Wind Order must be set aside on the independent basis that it is contrary to law.” 

Judge Saris addressed a point of keen interest to legal entities, observers, and advocacy organizations alike, noting and confirming that although the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, INC. (2025), held that federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions, the Court expressly declined to disturb existing precedent regarding the APA’s authorization for courts to vacate unlawful agency action. On that basis, Judge Saris promptly vacated the Wind Order in its entirety.  

By vacating the Wind Order, Judge Saris restored the rule of law and reopened the path for responsible wind energy development, allowing each project to be evaluated on its merits rather than subjected to an indefinite, unlawful halt. 

The National Wildlife Federation welcomes this decision with gratitude and resolve.As an organization dedicated to protecting wildlife and advancing responsible offshore wind energy development, we know that strong environmental stewardship and strong renewable energy development can advance together. Offshore wind energy, developed responsibly and guided by science, is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce climate-driven threats to birds, marine mammals, coastal ecosystems, and the communities who depend on them.

Following the release of this decision, Amber Hewett, senior director of offshore wind energy at the National Wildlife Federation, said, ““Judge Patti B. Saris’ court decision on this arbitrary and baseless delay to offshore wind energy permitting allows projects to move forward within the robust, well-established legal framework. Projects are subject to years-long review and public comment processes to ensure wildlife and communities are considered at every stage of development.

In order to protect wildlife and people from the effects of climate change, we need solutions like responsibly developed offshore wind energy which will reduce carbon emissions while meeting the rising demand for affordable energy.”

We stand ready to continue working with states, communities, Tribal Nations, industry partners, and federal agencies to ensure that offshore wind development safeguards wildlife, strengthens coastal resilience, and delivers the climate benefits our nation urgently needs.