District Court Enjoins Enforcement of Anti-Renewable Energy Policies
A preliminary injunction has been issued temporarily stopping enforcement of several anti-renewable energy policies against members of eight renewable energy trade associations and a consumer organization.1 On April 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the preliminary injunction request in Renew Northeast v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Case No. 25-cv-13961, against the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pending a full hearing on the merits.
The preliminary injunction prohibits the agencies from enforcing a series of policies that negatively impact the renewable energy sector:
- The Interior Department’s July 15, 2025 memorandum Departmental Review Procedures for Decisions, Actions, Consultations and Other Undertakings Related to Wind and Solar Energy Facilities (referred to in the Order as “DOI Review Procedures Memo”), which established a policy that required review of and approval by three of Interior’s most senior officials for each discretionary action related to wind and solar projects;
- S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s announcement in July 2025, stating that wind and solar projects would no longer have access to the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database;
- The Interior Department’s Secretarial Order 3438, “Managing Federal Energy Resources and Protecting the Environment,” issued August 1, 2025, requiring consideration of a proposed facility’s “capacity density” (facility acreage/Megawatt) when reviewing applications to construct wind and solar projects on lands under Interior’s jurisdiction;
- The Corps’ September 18, 2025 memorandum, “Direction on Reviewing Permit Applications Related to Energy General Projects,” directing the Corps to prioritize issuing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits for projects with higher capacity densities; and
- The Interior Solicitor’s M-Opinion issued May 1, 2025, reinstating an interpretation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) adopted during the first Trump Administration, that would prohibit offshore wind projects from having more than de minimis impact on other uses of the outer continental shelf, rather than allowing Interior to balance impacts on other uses against advancement of other goals enumerated in the OCSLA.
Plaintiff organizations challenged these agency actions as unlawful, asserting that they should be set aside under the criteria set by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The specific arguments included that the agency actions were adopted without following required procedures, that the actions were arbitrary and capricious and adopted without a reasoned basis and that they depart from prior agency positions without explanation.
The court’s analysis began with a thorough evaluation of plaintiffs’ standing to bring forth these claims. The court held that the plaintiff organizations had established standing based on concrete and imminent economic injuries, including permitting delays, increased compliance costs and disruption to existing investments and reliance interests.
The court also held that the federal agency actions were ripe for challenge and could be considered “final agency actions,” which is a threshold requirement to bring a claim under the APA. Defendants argued that the claims were not ripe because the challenged actions were only a notice that some further action may take place. The court found the claims were ripe for judicial review because the challenged actions are currently in effect and producing immediate consequences.
As to the merits of the preliminary injunction claims, the court applied the four-factor preliminary injunction standard: likelihood of success on the merits; irreparable and immediate injury; and the balance of equities and the public interest. The court determined that each factor weighed in favor of plaintiffs.
The court found that Interior failed to provide any justification for the DOI Review Procedures Memo and did not provide any justification or explanation beyond reliance on Executive Orders and Secretarial Orders. The court followed prior court decisions in ruling that, even when following Executive Orders, an agency still must provide a reasoned basis for its actions. The court held that plaintiffs would likely succeed on their other arguments as well, finding that the policy decisions were arbitrary and capricious. Regarding Interior’s directive to consider capacity density in decisions regarding use of federal land, the court held that plaintiffs would likely be able to succeed on an argument that it is contrary to law, but not that the policy is arbitrary and capricious.
The preliminary injunction is currently effective as to the member organizations of the Plaintiffs. Notably, the IPaC tool has already removed language prohibiting wind and solar projects from using the database. Absent further action by the court, the preliminary injunction remains in place until there is a final ruling on the merits of the challenges following briefing. In the meantime, Defendants Interior and the Corps have 60-days to appeal the preliminary injunction order.
1The original plaintiffs in this case include RENEW Northeast; Alliance for Clean Energy New York; Renewable Northwest; Southern Renewable Energy Association; Interwest Energy Alliance; Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition; Clean Grid Alliance; and Carolina Clean Energy Business Association. The complaint was amended on January 12, 2026 to include Green Energy Consumers Alliance, Inc.
