Wind and solar energy developers with pending federal permits, rights-of-way or consultation requests should be assessing a recent federal court decision preliminarily blocking the Trump administration’s sweeping restrictions on such projects. If the developers’ plans fall within the scope of the injunction, they should take steps to advance their applications while the opportunity exists.
The situation is fluid, however. The administration has until mid-June to appeal the ruling, and, although apparently stalled now, Congress could weigh in with a bill significantly affecting the regulatory landscape.
The current and potential changes stem from a decision on April 21, 2026, by Chief Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts who issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from enforcing five federal agency actions imposing sweeping restrictions on federal permitting for wind and solar energy projects. The ruling in RENEW Northeast v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Case No. 25-cv-13961 (D. Mass. Apr. 21, 2026), may allow substantial stalled renewable capacity to resume the federal permitting process — at least temporarily — without the secretary-level review requirements and capacity-density restrictions imposed since mid-2025.
Background
Beginning in 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a series of orders and memoranda implementing White House executive orders targeting wind and solar development (collectively, the Actions):
- DOI Review Procedures Memo (July 15, 2025)
The DOI required that three senior officials approve all discretionary actions related to wind and solar projects — covering at least 68 categories of permitting decisions — culminating in review by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. - IPaC Ban (July 2025)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service barred wind and solar projects from using the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website — a key tool for streamlining endangered species review — until the DOI completed the Review Procedures. - DOI Land Order/Secretarial Order No. 3438 (Aug. 1, 2025)
The DOI received direction to approve only energy projects with the highest capacity density (nameplate capacity × capacity factor ÷ total project acres), a metric that effectively disqualified most wind and solar projects in favor of nuclear, gas and coal. - Corps Memo (Sept. 18, 2025)
The Corps received direction to deprioritize Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permits for wind and solar projects in favor of higher-capacity-density energy sources. - Zerzan M-Opinion (May 1, 2025)
The DOI’s solicitor withdrew the prior administration’s interpretation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Section 8(p)(4) and reinstated a more restrictive standard requiring the DOI to prevent offshore activity causing more than de minimis interference with other outer continental shelf uses — effectively blocking new offshore wind construction and operation plan approvals and triggering re-evaluation of previously approved plans.
On Dec. 23, 2025, nine regional organizations representing renewable energy developers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that the Actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and seeking temporary and permanent injunctions against their implementation. The plaintiff organizations include RENEW Northeast, Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Renewable Northwest, Southern Renewable Energy Association, Interwest Energy Alliance, Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition Action, Clean Grid Alliance, Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association and Green Energy Consumers Alliance.
The Court’s Analysis
One key to the court’s opinion was its conclusion that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that four of the five challenged actions are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Specifically, the court found that the DOI Review Procedures Memo, the Wind and Solar IPaC Ban, the Corps Memo and the Zerzan M-Opinion were likely arbitrary and capricious for several reasons. They included a lack of sufficient explanation or justification for each action and failure to point to distinctions between wind and solar projects and other types of projects warranting increased review or scrutiny.
The court found that the DOI failed to provide any justification for the DOI Review Procedures Memo beyond reliance on executive orders and secretarial orders. Following prior court decisions, the court ruled that even when following executive orders, an agency still must provide a reasoned basis for its actions.
Regarding the DOI Land Order’s capacity density requirement, the court held that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the argument that it is contrary to law — specifically, that the DOI Land Order’s restriction on projects with lower capacity density contradicts statutory obligations, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s requirement to balance competing uses of federal land — but not that the policy is arbitrary and capricious.
Since the court found that the Actions were either arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law, it did not address the plaintiffs’ other arguments.
The court also focused on irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, due to the likely lack of potential recovery against the government because of sovereign immunity. Industry groups presented evidence that the Actions jeopardized tens of gigawatts of renewable capacity, with significant downstream effects on investment, grid reliability and energy costs. The court found that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction, noting the public’s interest in reliable, affordable energy and in ensuring that government agencies follow the law. While the agencies referenced the “intrusive effect” of an injunction on agency operations, the court countered by expressly stating that the agency defendants have “no interest in perpetuating unlawful agency practices that do not comply with the APA.”
Relief Granted
Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), the court declined to issue a universal nationwide injunction. Instead, the injunction applies only to the entity plaintiffs and — for all plaintiffs except the Green Energy Consumers Alliance, which relied on its own organizational standing rather than the standing of its members — to all members of each entity plaintiff.
It remains to be seen whether the agencies will apply the injunction broadly to all projects or only to those projects in which the developer can demonstrate membership in one of the plaintiff organizations. Notably, however, the IPaC tool already removed language prohibiting wind and solar projects from using the database, suggesting at least some immediate practical effect.
Post-Decision Congressional Developments
In the days following the court’s decision, the ruling became a focal point in congressional proceedings. On April 29, 2026, Interior Secretary Burgum appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for a hearing on the DOI’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Democratic senators used the hearing to press Burgum on whether the DOI would comply with the preliminary injunction and advance stalled renewable energy permits. Although Burgum indicated that he disagreed with the court’s ruling, when pressed, he stated that he was willing to process solar and wind permits.
Practical Implications for Renewable Energy Developers
- Agency implementation uncertainty
Federal field offices may be slow to implement the injunction without guidance from Washington, particularly given Burgum’s stated disagreement with the ruling. Developers should proactively notify relevant agencies of the injunction, document all communications and obtain written confirmation of their membership status in covered organizations. - Preliminary and subject to appeal
Because this is a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment, the government may appeal and may seek an emergency stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit or the Supreme Court. The defendants have 60 days to appeal the preliminary injunction order, so some developers may use this window to advance projects rather than assume the ruling is permanent. - Limitations
The injunction does not address the separate Wind Memo issued by the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, which directed federal agencies to suspend issuing all new permits, leases and other authorizations needed to develop wind energy projects. That directive is the subject of separate litigation in State of New York v. Trump, currently on appeal before the First Circuit. The RENEW Northeast opinion relies heavily on the earlier New York v. Trump opinion issued by Judge Patti B. Saris in December 2025, and the First Circuit’s decision on appeal may affect the durability of the RENEW Northeast ruling. - Congressional outlook
The April 29 Senate hearing signals that bipartisan permitting reform legislation — which is important to both renewable energy and fossil fuel developers — may remain stalled unless the administration demonstrates a willingness to process wind and solar permits. Developers should monitor these legislative developments closely, as any permitting reform bill could significantly affect the regulatory landscape for energy projects on federal lands and waters.
McGuireWoods continues to monitor developments in this area. For questions, contact the author or a member of the Renewable Energy Practice Group.