Seventeen state attorneys general are suing the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to strike down the national energy emergency declared by Executive Order 14156. The energy emergency lawsuit, Washington v. Trump (No. 2:25-cv-00869), argues that no real emergency exists and that the order is being used to fast-track fossil fuel projects by shortcutting environmental laws. As of mid-June 2026, the case is pending before Judge Jamal N. Whitehead, with a motion to dismiss fully briefed and awaiting a ruling.1CourtListener. State of Washington v. Trump
What the Executive Order Did
President Trump signed Executive Order 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” on January 20, 2025.2Federal Register. Declaring a National Energy Emergency Invoking the National Emergencies Act, it called domestic energy production, transportation, and refining “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the economy and national security, and directed federal agencies to use every available emergency authority to speed up leasing, permitting, and construction of energy projects.
The order’s definition of “energy” covers crude oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, biofuels, geothermal heat, and critical minerals. It excludes wind and solar.3UC Berkeley School of Law. President Trump’s Executive Order Declaring a National Energy Emergency
To carry it out, agencies were told to invoke Army Corps of Engineers emergency permitting provisions historically reserved for disasters like hurricanes and oil spills, to use Endangered Species Act emergency consultation “to the maximum extent permissible,” and to compress reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. On April 23, 2025, the Department of the Interior formalized emergency permitting procedures that cut environmental assessments to 14 days and full environmental impact statements to roughly 28 days, down from a typical two-year process.4U.S. Department of the Interior. Department Interior Implements Emergency Permitting Procedures Strengthen Domestic Energy
Who Is Suing
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the case on May 9, 2025, leading a coalition of 15 states. They were joined by Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.5Washington State Attorney General. Washington and California Lead Coalition of States to Challenge Trump’s Energy Emergency The complaint named President Trump, the head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as defendants.6Minnesota Attorney General. Energy Emergency Lawsuit
On January 30, 2026, the states filed an amended and supplemental complaint adding Colorado and New Mexico as plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of the Interior as a defendant, bringing the coalition to 17 states.7Vermont Attorney General. Attorney General Clark Files Amended Complaint in Lawsuit Against Trump Administration The amended pleading incorporated new claims about the Interior Department’s emergency permitting actions taken after the original filing.8Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. State of Washington v. Trump
The States’ Core Arguments
The coalition’s challenge rests on three related claims.
First, the states argue the order is unlawful under the common law ultra vires doctrine because the circumstances it describes do not meet any recognized legal definition of an emergency. They point out that U.S. energy production was at an all-time high when the order was signed, and characterize the emergency designation as a pretext for deregulation.9Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Washington v. Trump
Second, they claim the agencies’ adoption of emergency permitting procedures is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because the procedures are not reasonably tied to any actual emergency. Bonta said the president was “acting well beyond the scope of his emergency powers” by repurposing disaster-response authorities for ordinary policy changes.10California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration Over Declaring National Energy Emergency
Third, the complaint highlights what the states call internal inconsistencies. The order claims the country lacks sufficient energy while proposing to export those same supplies, and it leaves wind and solar out of its definition of “energy” entirely. The states treat that omission as evidence of partisan purpose rather than genuine emergency management.9Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Washington v. Trump
The Permits Driving the Harm Claim
The states point to specific approvals as concrete evidence of injury. On July 3, 2025, the Bureau of Land Management approved the expansion of the Wildcat Loadout Facility near Helper, Utah, owned by Coal Energy Group 2, LLC. The facility is designed to increase crude oil transport capacity by more than one billion gallons per year. An earlier expansion application had stalled for two years after the company failed to provide required information. Under the emergency procedures, BLM completed its review in 14 days, with no public input and no opportunity for administrative appeal.11Center for Biological Diversity. Trump Administration Uses Bogus Energy Emergency to Rubberstamp Expansion of Utah Crude Oil Transport Facility
In September 2025, the Interior Department authorized the expansion of the Black Butte coal mine in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, permitting mining of an additional 9.2 million tons of coal and extending operations through at least 2039.12E&E News. Interior Fast-Tracks Approval of Wyoming Coal Mine The review took roughly 28 days under alternative NEPA arrangements and included a 10-day public scoping period with a single virtual open house.13Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Black Butte Coal Mine Federal Coal Lease Mining Plan Modification Record of Decision
The plaintiff states argue that fast-tracking projects like these without meaningful environmental review damages state waters, historic properties, and tribal lands, and forces them to bear the cost of filling the regulatory gap left by curtailed federal oversight.9Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Washington v. Trump
The Defense and Red-State Support
The administration moved to dismiss on March 5, 2026, arguing the states failed to show they were deprived of procedural rights and that their claimed harms were “speculative.”14E&E News. Blue States Urge Court Not to End Lawsuit Against Trump Energy Emergency
On March 13, 2026, West Virginia filed an amicus brief supporting the motion, joined by Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.15Nebraska Attorney General. Washington v. Trump Amicus Brief The brief argued that a genuine energy emergency exists, pointing to electricity demand from artificial intelligence and data centers, a strained grid, rising costs, and extreme weather risks. It contended that the National Emergencies Act gives the president broad discretion courts should not second-guess, and warned that individual states should not have “veto power” over the federal government’s response to national crises.
Where the Case Stands
The states filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 6, 2026, telling the court that the administration’s proposed alternative of challenging each emergency permit individually would force them into “a game of judicial whack-a-mole” rather than addressing the policy directives that enable those approvals. The defendants’ reply was filed on June 4, 2026.16Oregon Department of Justice. Energy Emergency Executive Order, Washington v. Trump
As of mid-June 2026, the motion is fully briefed and under consideration by Judge Whitehead. No ruling has been issued, and no injunction has been entered to halt the emergency permitting procedures while the case is pending.1CourtListener. State of Washington v. Trump