What the Court Decision Invaliding the Federal Wind Energy Moratorium Means for Renewable Energy
In a highly anticipated decision, the moratorium on permitting wind energy projects that federal agencies have imposed since January 20, 2025 was struck down by the Massachusetts Federal District Court on December 8, 2025. The court granted summary judgment to seventeen states and Alliance for Clean Energy New York and vacated what it referred to as the federal agencies’ “Wind Order.” The agencies implemented the Wind Order in response to a Presidential Memorandum issued on January 20, 2025, entitled 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 (Wind Memo). At issue in the case are federal policies relating to offshore and onshore wind energy development.
The district court ruled that the federal agencies’ halting of all permitting for wind energy projects without providing a reasoned basis for the decision was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court also held that an indefinite halt to permitting violated two APA requirements: (1) that agencies have a nondiscretionary duty to act on matters presented to them “within a reasonable time;” and (2) that agencies have a nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on license applications they receive “within a reasonable time.”
The court rejected the government’s argument that agency action is not subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard whenever the agency is acting pursuant to executive order as contrary to U.S. Supreme Court authority. The court also distinguished a recent high court decision on the ground that the arbitrary and capricious standard is inapplicable to agency action in the “atypical” situation where Congress has committed an action to the sole discretion of the President.
Based on these holdings, the district court vacated the Wind Order, setting it aside and declaring that the Wind Order is unlawful under the APA. In stark terms, the court stated that federal agencies “may not…decline to adjudicate applications altogether, for an unspecified time….”
This ruling applies to all actions subject to the Wind Order and is not limited to the parties to the proceeding. In vacating the Wind Order, the court explained that the U.S. Supreme Court recent holding in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that district courts lack authority to issue universal injunctions did not address APA-based claims. Accordingly, the district court intends its order to apply broadly and not be limited to the states that were plaintiffs in the action or to particular permit applications.
The district court’s decision did not directly address the other actions that the Interior Department and other agencies have taken in recent months to restrict wind and solar project permitting. Practically speaking, however, its reasoning may have implications for those actions.
The court’s ruling applies to the actions of the Department of the Interior, which includes the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service); and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Despite the court’s order clarifying that these federal agencies may not decline to act on wind project applications simply on the basis of an Executive mandate, the Trump administration may continue to implement its Wind Memo through other actions. For example, federal agencies may take actions to bolster the reasoning supporting implementation of the Wind Memo directives. The Trump administration also may still seek to limit the geographic scope or effect of this ruling.
Federal agencies may also leverage procedures provided for in environmental statutes not at issue in the case to implement the Wind Memo’s directives. Lastly, agencies may simply deny applications for wind energy projects. The district court emphasized, consistent with long-standing authority, that the APA does not require any particular result. The court expressed no view on whether agencies should issue or deny particular permits. Of course, any permit denial could itself be challenged.
We can also expect states that have adopted climate change reduction goals and renewable portfolio standards to enact laws aimed at mitigating federal moratoria on permits. For example, California’s Governor Newsom recently signed legislation directing the California Energy Commission to prepare a programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR) to streamline local agency reviews of specific facilities that are within the class or classes of facilities described in the PEIR. The law is intended to expedite state and local permitting of solar and wind projects.
