Trump Clean Energy Policy Lawsuits: Wind, DOE Grants, Tax Credits

Federal courts have handed the Trump administration a string of losses in lawsuits challenging its clean energy policies. Since early 2025, judges have vacated the January 2025 wind permitting moratorium, lifted stop-work orders on five offshore wind projects, blocked most of the Interior Department’s new wind and solar permitting restrictions, overturned IRS guidance that tightened access to clean energy tax credits, and ordered the Department of Energy to restore tens of millions of dollars in terminated grants. Additional suits over roughly $8 billion in cancelled clean energy funding, a $928 million payment to a French company to abandon offshore wind leases, the $7 billion Solar for All program, state Climate Superfund laws, and the EPA’s rescission of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding are still pending.

Wind Moratorium Struck Down

Trump’s first-day presidential memorandum imposed an indefinite freeze on all federal approvals, permits, and leases for wind projects, onshore and offshore. Seventeen states and the Alliance for Clean Energy New York sued in the District of Massachusetts.

On December 8, 2025, Judge Patti B. Saris ruled the moratorium unlawful and vacated it. The court found the freeze “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law” under the Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the agencies “provided no reasoned explanation for categorically and indefinitely halting all wind energy approvals.”¹ Final judgment was entered December 19, 2025, requiring the federal government to resume processing wind permit applications.²

The Justice Department appealed to the First Circuit, then moved to dismiss its own appeal without explanation. The First Circuit granted the motion on June 15, 2026, leaving the district court’s ruling intact.³

Offshore Wind Stop-Work Orders Lifted

In December 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued stop-work orders halting construction on five offshore wind projects already under way, citing classified reports about “national security risks” related to radar interference. Developers said the administration refused to provide unclassified summaries of those risks. Four of the five sued, and all five projects won preliminary injunctions allowing construction to resume.⁴

Revolution Wind (700 MW, off Rhode Island): Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Columbia granted an injunction on January 12, 2026, calling the stop-work order the “height of arbitrary and capricious.”⁵
Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (2.6 GW), Vineyard Wind 1 (800 MW, off Massachusetts), and Empire Wind (2 GW, off New York) received injunctions in the following weeks.
Sunrise Wind (924 MW, off New York): Judge Lamberth granted the fifth injunction on February 2, 2026. Ørsted, Sunrise Wind’s parent company, said the stop-work order had been costing more than $1.25 million per day on the $7 billion project.⁶

The injunctions are temporary. The underlying challenges to the stop-work orders remain pending.

Interior Permitting Restrictions Blocked

A July 2025 Interior Department memorandum required Secretary Doug Burgum to personally approve virtually every wind and solar permit, covering at least 68 distinct categories of decisions. The policy introduced a “capacity density” metric that deprioritized renewables, the Fish and Wildlife Service banned developers from using a federal wildlife-impact database called IPaC, and a Solicitor’s opinion reinterpreted the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to block new offshore wind projects. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a parallel directive prioritizing “high-capacity density” projects.⁷⁸

Eight renewable energy trade groups sued in December 2025 in the District of Massachusetts in Renew Northeast v. U.S. Department of the Interior. Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in support.⁹

On April 21, 2026, Chief Judge Denise J. Casper granted a preliminary injunction blocking five of the six challenged actions. The court found the agencies had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for changing policy, had not adequately considered developer reliance interests, and had acted contrary to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The order cited “irreparable economic harm” from project delays and cancellations affecting roughly 57.2 GW of capacity and $905 million in invested capital.¹⁰⁷

The one action the court did not block was a separate Interior land order. Judge Casper found the plaintiffs had not made a sufficient showing on that claim at the preliminary-injunction stage. The case remains ongoing.¹⁰

IRS Tax Credit Guidance Overturned

Following a July 7, 2025 executive order directing Treasury to tighten “beginning of construction” rules, the IRS issued Notice 2025-42, which eliminated the longstanding Five Percent Safe Harbor for wind projects and for solar projects above 1.5 megawatts. Developers would have to prove physical construction activity rather than financial commitment.¹¹

A coalition led by the Oregon Environmental Council, joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, the Hopi Utilities Corporation, Woven Energy, and the City and County of San Francisco, sued in the District of Columbia (Oregon Environmental Council v. IRS, No. 1:25-cv-04400). On June 6, 2026, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled the guidance “arbitrary and capricious,” finding the agency had abandoned a decade of consistent practice without a reasoned explanation and had failed to justify treating wind and solar differently from other technologies. The court vacated Notice 2025-42 in full, restoring the Five Percent Safe Harbor.¹¹¹²

The ruling gave developers a legal path to lock in tax credits before the July 4, 2026 statutory deadline set by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The credits at stake are worth 30% to 50% or more of project costs. The government could appeal or issue revised guidance.¹³

Cancelled DOE Clean Energy Grants

Three lawsuits challenge the Department of Energy’s termination of clean energy grants. Two have produced rulings against the administration; the largest is still pending.

The $27.6 Million “Blue State” Ruling

On January 12, 2026, Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia ruled that DOE’s termination of seven grant awards totaling $27.6 million violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. The plaintiffs — the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, together with Elevate Energy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Plug In America, and the Southeast Community Organization — showed DOE had selected grants for cancellation based on whether the recipient was located in a state that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. The court found “no rational relationship” between the location-based terminations and any legitimate government interest, noting “nearly identical projects” in Trump-voting states were spared. The termination notices were vacated and funding ordered restored.¹⁴¹⁵

DOE had cancelled 315 awards supporting 223 projects worth $7.56 billion in total. The January ruling addressed only the seven awards in that litigation.¹⁶

The $82.1 Million Ruling

A separate coalition of seven awardees led by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers challenged the cancellation of 11 grants totaling $82.1 million. On June 11, 2026, Judge Mehta again ruled the cancellations unlawful and overturned the termination orders.¹⁷

The 13-State $8 Billion Suit

On February 18, 2026, attorneys general from 13 states filed a broader suit in the Northern District of California challenging the termination of approximately $8 billion in clean energy and infrastructure funding authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The plaintiffs are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. They argue only Congress can appropriate and define federal spending, and the president cannot unilaterally cancel it.¹⁸

Specific losses identified in the complaint include $1.2 billion for California’s Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, $600 million for Colorado energy and infrastructure projects, and funding for the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub in Washington.¹⁹ DOE maintained the grants were terminated after individualized review found projects “failed to meet one or more of the standards required to justify further taxpayer funding.”¹⁸ The plaintiffs allege the cuts disproportionately targeted Democratic-voting states. The case is ongoing.

Solar for All

On October 6, 2025, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and other groups sued the EPA in the District of Rhode Island over its termination of the $7 billion Solar for All program, which was designed to provide solar bill relief to more than 900,000 low-income households. The case, Rhode Island AFL-CIO v. EPA, alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the constitutional separation of powers.²⁰

Judge Mary S. McElroy denied the government’s motion to transfer the case to Washington, D.C. in December 2025. Cross-motions for summary judgment were fully briefed in April 2026, and no ruling on the merits has been issued.²¹

The TotalEnergies Payment Suit

In March 2026, the Interior Department announced an agreement to pay TotalEnergies, a French energy company, $928 million to cancel two offshore wind leases. One lease, purchased in 2022 for $795 million, covered an area between New York and New Jersey; the other, off North Carolina, was purchased for approximately $133 million. TotalEnergies agreed to renounce all U.S. offshore wind development and redirect the money toward a liquefied natural gas plant in Texas.²² In April 2026 the administration announced similar deals with Bluepoint Wind ($765 million) and Golden State Wind (approximately $120 million), both co-owned by Ocean Winds.²³

On June 2, 2026, seven states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont — sued in the District of Columbia challenging the TotalEnergies deal. The complaint argues the administration failed to hold a legally required hearing on whether maintaining the leases would cause “serious harm to life, property, national security, or the environment,” and that the payment violated the Judgment Fund Act because it was not a settlement of an imminent lawsuit but a “contrived arrangement.” The suit seeks to strike down the agreement and vacate the lease cancellations.²⁴ No preliminary injunction had been sought as of mid-June 2026.

Climate Superfund Laws and the Endangerment Finding

Two of the pending cases have the administration on the offensive against state climate laws and federal precedent.

On May 1, 2025, the Justice Department sued Vermont and New York to overturn their Climate Superfund laws, which require fossil fuel companies to pay into funds for climate damages. Vermont’s 2024 law was the first in the country and has no monetary cap; New York’s version seeks $75 billion from oil and gas companies over 25 years. DOJ argues the laws are preempted by the Clean Air Act, violate the Constitution, and “threaten American energy independence.” Attorney General Pamela Bondi called them an “unlawful overreach.” DOJ simultaneously filed suits seeking to preemptively block pending climate cases against fossil fuel companies in Hawaii and Michigan.²⁵²⁶

Vermont’s case is being heard in U.S. District Court in Rutland. On March 30, 2026, Judge Mary Kay Lanthier heard arguments on the state’s motion to dismiss. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute have filed their own challenge, and 24 states led by West Virginia have intervened against the law. Judge Lanthier took the motions under advisement and had not ruled as of late March 2026.²⁷

Separately, a broad coalition of health and environmental organizations, including the American Public Health Association and the Conservation Law Foundation, filed a petition for review on February 18, 2026, in the D.C. Circuit challenging the EPA’s rescission of its 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding. That finding, upheld in Massachusetts v. EPA, underpins the legal framework for regulating vehicle emissions and other greenhouse gas sources. Petitioners argue the repeal is “illegal and unscientific” and ignores settled law.²⁸ As of June 2026, the case remains in early procedural stages, with petitioners seeking to delay merits briefing while EPA considers pending reconsideration petitions.²⁹

What Happens Next

The administration is expected to appeal several of the adverse decisions, and agencies may attempt to address the legal defects courts have identified and reissue modified policies. Injunctions in the offshore wind cases are preliminary and will be tested again at the merits stage. The pending suits over the $8 billion in cancelled DOE funding, the $7 billion Solar for All program, the TotalEnergies payment, the Vermont and New York Climate Superfund laws, and the EPA endangerment finding rescission could each produce major rulings through the rest of 2026 and beyond.³⁰

1
Mass.gov. AG Campbell Secures Final Victory as Court Dismisses Trump Administration’s Appeal in Case Over Federal Offshore Wind Permitting Pause
2
Conservation Law Foundation. Court Formally Vacates Trump Wind Moratorium
3
E&E News. States Claim Victory as Trump Admin Ends Wind Court Fight
4
Utility Dive. Trump Burgum Offshore Wind Ørsted Sunrise Wind
5
New Bedford Light. Federal Judge Allows Revolution Wind to Resume Construction Off R.I. Coast
6
Ørsted. US Federal Court Grants Preliminary Injunction
7
ESG Dive. Court Trump Wind Solar Permitting
8
Politico. Interior Memo Could Strike Dire Blow to Wind and Solar Projects
9
E&E News. Blue States Back Lawsuit Against Trump Renewable Policies
10
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Renew Northeast v. United States Department of the Interior
11
Oregon Environmental Council. IRS Lawsuit Victory
12
Project Finance Law. Oregon Environmental Council v. IRS, Court Decision
13
Environmental Defense Fund. Court Overturns Trump IRS Guidance Targeted Clean Energy Projects
14
E&E News. Judge Rejects Trump DOE Grant Cancellations in Blue States
15
ESG Dive. Trump Administration Unlawfully Cut Clean Energy Grants, Court Rules
16
PV Tech. US Court Rules DOE Cancellation of US$7.5 Billion of Clean Energy Grants Unlawful
17
Yahoo News. Judge Overturns DOE Cancellation of $82.1M in Clean Energy Grants
18
Smart Cities Dive. States Sue DOE Terminating $8B Clean Energy Funding
19
Courthouse News Service. Thirteen States Sue Trump Administration for Terminating Clean Energy Grants
20
Conservation Law Foundation. New Lawsuit Seeks to Protect $7 Billion in Solar Funding
21
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Rhode Island AFL-CIO v. EPA
22
Yale Climate Connections. Trump Administration to Pay French Company $1B to Walk Away From US Offshore Wind Leases
23
Yahoo Finance. Trump Administration Pay Two More Developers to Cancel Wind Projects
24
CNN. Trump TotalEnergies Lawsuit Offshore Wind
25
The New York Times. Climate Superfund Law Vermont New York Lawsuits
26
CNN. Trump Climate Lawsuits Hawaii Michigan New York Vermont
27
Vermont Public. Vermont Defends Its Landmark Climate Superfund Law Against Trump Administration Lawsuit
28
American Public Health Association. EPA Sued Over Illegal Repeal of Climate Protections
29
Climate Case Chart. American Public Health Association v. EPA
30
Inside EPA. Fights Over Trump Renewable Power Policies Increasingly Land in Court