Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development

On December 8, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in State of New York v. Trump held unlawful and vacated the U.S. Department of the Interior’s “Wind Order” implementing President Trump’s January 20, 2025, “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,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8363 (Wind Memo, discussed further in a prior alert). This lawsuit, brought by a coalition of states with Alliance for Clean Energy New York intervening on their behalf, challenges Interior’s implementation, through the Wind Order, of the Wind Memo’s direction to pause processing permits and other approvals necessary to onshore and offshore wind energy development. Notably, the lawsuit does not challenge the other element of the Wind Memo, which withdrew unleased offshore areas from future leasing under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). (Note, even though the Wind Order indicates its effect is temporary, the Wind Memo instructs relevant agencies not to advance wind development projects until a “comprehensive assessment” is completed, and the district court’s order confirms that the affected agencies had no plans to restart permitting activities until that assessment was complete.)

The government raised two threshold defenses against reviewability under the APA, arguing: (1) the Wind Order is not a challengeable final agency action; and (2) the Wind Order is not subject to arbitrary-and-capricious review because Interior was acting at the direction of the president. Regarding the first point, the court found the Wind Order to be final under the standard two-part test, i.e., that it marked the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process and that it had concrete legal consequences. Importantly for wind project proponents, the court recognized the real-world consequences of the Wind Order, including that members of Alliance for Clean Energy New York in the wind energy supply chain were left with stranded investments and terminated contracts. As to the second point, the court disagreed that acting at the behest of the president insulated the Wind Order from review, citing, inter alia, the Supreme Court’s recent emergency docket order in Trump v. Orr. The district court interpreted Orr not to preclude judicial review under the APA, but as endorsing the much narrower point that agency action taken pursuant to a presidential directive is not arbitrary and capricious where federal statute directs the agency to follow the directive. Because “no statute expressly require[d]” Interior to follow the president’s directive to pause development activities set out in the Wind Memo, the district court said the Wind Order was not exempted from review under the APA. (In this regard, the district court contrasted the Wind Order from the unchallenged first section of the Wind Memo, which invokes a provision of the OCSLA empowering the president directly to withdraw offshore areas from disposition.)

On the merits, the government conceded that the president’s Wind Memo and Interior's Wind Order comprised “the entirety” of the rationale for the decision, and that the “sole factor” behind the decision was the president’s directive. As such, the district court concluded that the government failed to consider relevant issues and reasonably explain its decision, and also failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the abrupt change in policy. The court also criticized the lack of recognition of the reliance interests at play, including state energy policies that relied on wind energy development to set emission-reduction targets. For those reasons, the court concluded the Wind Order was arbitrary and capricious.

The court also concluded that the Wind Order and the government’s subsequent lack of movement on the comprehensive assessment violated APA provisions requiring the government to act on pending requests within a reasonable timeframe. Accordingly, the court ruled the Wind Order was contrary to law.

As for the appropriate remedy, the court confirmed that, under the APA, vacatur was still available and was in this instance appropriate. The court distinguished vacatur under the APA from the universal injunctions the Supreme Court disapproved of earlier this year in Trump v. CASA (discussed more here).

Of course, this decision is subject to appeal, and the vacatur could itself also be stayed pending that appeal. The district court set a status conference for December 15 to discuss the form of judgment and remaining case matters. Additionally, the court’s decision expresses no opinions regarding the merits of any individual project or the ability of the government to use other mechanisms to effectively reach the same result. As such, predictions regarding the resumption of any particular project or outcome of any particular permit request remain premature. But this decision, for now, serves as a reminder of the distinctions between relief available under the APA and relief available under a federal court’s equitable powers in suits against federal government agencies.

Crowell & Moring will continue to track developments and provide updates as appropriate.