###

President Donald Trump’s offshore wind ban has been overturned.

On Monday, Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts ruled that President Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order halting permits and leasing for new wind energy projects is “unlawful,” vacating the order and ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which include 17 states and Washington, D.C. A group of environmental advocacy groups, including the Arcata-based Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), filed an amicus curae brief in support of the suit.

In her 47-page ruling – linked here – Judge Saris wrote that the so-called Wind Order — one of the first executive actions of Trump’s second term — was “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.” The order continues:

Further, given that the Wind Order constitutes a change of course from decades of agencies’ issuing (or denying) permits related to wind energy projects, the Agency Defendants were required, at minimum, to “provide a reasoned explanation for the change” and to “display awareness that [they were] changing position.” … They failed to do so. Instead, they implemented the Wind Order on Inauguration Day without elucidating the “reasons for the new policy.” … [T]he Wind Memo does not provide adequate explanation: It merely includes a single sentence citing “various alleged legal deficiencies underlying” wind permitting, “potential inadequacies in various environmental reviews,” and the possibility that these vaguely defined issues “may lead to grave harm.”

In short, what that means is the Trump administration claimed that offshore wind is uniquely harmful to the environment — while promoting coal and nuclear energy, both of which have been proven to have significant environmental impacts — without having the evidence to back it up.

​​Matt Simmons, an attorney with EPIC, said the president is allowed to change U.S. energy policies, but emphasized that “you have to show proof [and] reason that something informed your decision, that you aren’t just saying this for no reason.”

“What the Trump administration completely failed to do here was provide any sort of evidence that offshore wind is harmful to the environment, and therefore needed this emergency action to shut down leasing and permitting across the entire country,” Simmons continued. “In this particular case, the states … argued that the order was so harmful to their economies and to their efforts to fight climate change that it was not acceptable to leave it standing in the meantime. [Judge Saris] agreed with the states, and not only declared it unlawful, but vacated the order.”

Asked whether the ruling will stick, Simmons said it’s likely that the administration will appeal.

“The Trump administration has basically no respect for the law, and so they often sort of shoot from the hip and do things in an unlawful way,” Simmons added. And this is just yet another example of them doing that. That’s why they lose so frequently in court, because they don’t bother to do the actual work of following the law.”

Congressman Jared Huffman issued a statement this morning celebrating the ruling, calling the administration’s “war on clean energy flat-out illegal.”

“From day one of Trump 2.0, Democrats have been fighting for the American people and a clean energy future,” Huffman wrote. “The fight isn’t over, but the courts have sent a clear message – this lawless president can’t get away with killing affordable, job-creating clean energy just so he can tip the scales for his Big Oil billionaire buddies.” 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following statement in response to the court ruling:

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today celebrated the decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts invalidating the Trump Administration’s action freezing the development of wind energy and declaring it unlawful. Wind energy is a homegrown source of reliable, affordable energy that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, creates billions of dollars in economic activity and tax payments, and already supplies more than 10% of the country’s electricity. Today’s decision vacates the Trump Administration’s “Day One” executive memorandum that imposed an indefinite moratorium on offshore and onshore wind energy projects and brings the attorneys general lawsuit to a final resolution subject to appeal. 

“Today, we celebrate another victory against the Trump Administration. A court has agreed with California and our sister states nationwide: The Trump Administration’s attempt to thwart states’ efforts to make energy more clean, reliable, and affordable for our residents is unlawful and cannot stand,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration seems intent on raising costs on American families at every juncture — and California is equally committed to challenging every one of its illegal attempts to make life more expensive for Californians.”

BACKGROUND: 

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Memorandum that, among other things, indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of offshore and onshore wind energy projects pending an indefinite federal review of wind leasing and permitting practices. Pursuant to this directive, federal agencies stopped all permitting and approval activities related to onshore or offshore wind energy projects. 

In addition to relying on onshore wind energy, in California, there are also currently five federal offshore wind leases off of California’s coast. Two are located offshore by Humboldt, while the remaining three are offshore from Morro Bay. These new developments are designed to bring substantial amounts of clean energy to the grid, including enough to power 1.6 million homes and potentially more. The President’s directive would have not only derailed the transition to clean energy but would have also threatened to increase consumer energy costs and jeopardized the creation of thousands of union jobs and the increased economic activity to the Humboldt area.

In May, Attorney General Bonta joined a multistate coalition in suing the Administration, alleging that the President’s memorandum would harm states’ efforts to secure reliable, diversified, and affordable sources of energy to meet the increasing demand for electricity and help reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants, meet clean energy goals, and address climate change. The directive also presented a looming threat to the states’ significant investments in wind industry infrastructure, supply chains, and workforce development — investments that already total billions of dollars.

###

DOCUMENT: New York v. Trump