Federal Judge Dumps Trump Order Blocking Wind Projects

WASHINGTON – A federal judge struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order blocking wind energy projects. On Monday, Dec. 8, the judge stated that the order’s attempts to halt nearly all leasing of wind farms on federal lands and waters were “arbitrary and capricious.”

Judge Patti Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts rejected Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order. The proclamation sought to block wind energy projects. Saris declared it a violation of U.S. law.

Judge Saris ruled in favor of a group of state attorneys general from 17 states, and Washington, D.C. New York Attorney General Letitia James led the coalition. The group challenged Trump’s Day One order, which paused leading and permitting for wind energy projects.

The Trump administration has shown rampant opposition to renewable energy. The administration has instead prioritized fossil fuels to produce electricity, rather than offshore wind.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell deemed the decision a victory for renewable energy and green jobs.

“Massachusetts has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into offshore wind, and today, we successfully protected those important investments from the Trump administration’s unlawful order,” said Campbell in a statement.

Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, expressed the unfair, preferential treatment of offshore wind projects. Rogers claimed the rest of the energy industry was weakened by difficult regulations placed by the Biden Administration.

“President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s dominance to protect our economic and national security,” Rogers said in a statement to The Associated Press.

The coalition against the executive order argues that the president doesn’t have the authority to stop project permitting. They asserted that doing so could harm states’ economies, energy mix, public health, and climate efforts.

The Trump Administration challenged the states’ arguments, claiming they were nothing more than a policy difference. The states’ preference for wind over fossil fuel energy development was outside of the federal court’s jurisdiction.