Offshore Wind Scores Two Court Victories, With a Third Ruling Tomorrow

Two weeks ago, we outlined the legal arguments offshore wind developers would use against federal suspension orders. This week, courts validated every one of them.

On January 12, Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Orsted's Revolution Wind project could resume construction, calling the government's suspension order "the height of arbitrary and capricious action." On January 15, Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, reached the same conclusion for Equinor's Empire Wind project. Tomorrow, Dominion Energy goes before Judge Jamar Walker in Norfolk seeking identical relief for Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind.

The pattern is clear. The precedent is forming. And it matters well beyond offshore wind.

What Happened

Revolution Wind: The First Domino (January 12)

Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia didn't mince words. The Reagan appointee said he was "very skeptical of the government's true motives" and found "no emergency exists in this case."

The core holding: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's December 22 suspension order was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The government failed to explain why it couldn't take action short of a complete construction halt while it evaluated its national security concerns.

Revolution Wind is 87 percent complete. Fifty-eight of sixty-five turbines are installed. The project loses $1.44 million per day in vessel contracts. Judge Lamberth found this constituted irreparable harm that justified immediate injunctive relief.

What heightened his skepticism? Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's public statements criticizing offshore wind for economic reasons unrelated to national security. When the stated rationale doesn't match the public messaging, courts notice.

Empire Wind: A Trump Appointee Rules Against Trump Policy (January 15)

Three days later, Judge Carl Nichols granted Equinor the same relief. The ruling is notable because Nichols was appointed by President Trump, yet he found the administration's suspension order legally deficient.

Judge Nichols faulted the government for failing to respond to key points in Empire Wind's court filings, including the contention that the administration violated proper procedure. He found the project would suffer "imminent irreparable harm" from further delays.

Empire Wind is 60 percent complete with $4 billion invested and 4,000 workers engaged. The project is designed to power more than 500,000 New York homes by 2027.

Dominion Energy: Tomorrow's Hearing (January 16)

Dominion Energy's Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project goes before Judge Jamar Walker in Norfolk tomorrow. The company has already invested $9 billion and is losing $5 million daily in vessel costs alone.

Analysts expect a favorable ruling based on the Revolution Wind and Empire Wind precedents. The legal arguments are substantively identical, and Dominion has the added factor of being further along in the judicial process. Judge Walker ordered the government to produce classified evidence by January 9 and has had time to review it.

The Fifth Project Joins

Vineyard Wind, the fifth suspended project, joined the litigation last week. That project is nearly half operational and has been allowed to continue sending power to the grid despite the suspension order. The Massachusetts project demonstrates an additional absurdity: the government is suspending a project that's already generating electricity.

What It Means

The "Arbitrary and Capricious" Standard Is Holding

Our January 5 analysis predicted that APA claims would be the developers' strongest argument. That prediction proved correct. Both Judge Lamberth and Judge Nichols anchored their rulings in the arbitrary and capricious standard.

For project developers in any industry, this matters. The APA requires federal agencies to provide reasoned explanations for their decisions. "National security" isn't a magic word that ends judicial review. When agency action contradicts prior approvals, violates procedural requirements, or lacks factual basis, courts will intervene. Our regulatory compliance practice helps clients navigate these complex federal requirements.

Substantially Complete Projects Have the Strongest Hand

Both rulings emphasized the high completion percentages and massive sunk costs. An 87 percent built wind farm isn't a speculative investment; it's nearly finished infrastructure. Courts are receptive to irreparable harm arguments when projects are this far along.

If you're managing a portfolio of federal projects, completion percentage now directly correlates with legal protection. Early-stage projects face harder irreparable harm arguments. Substantially complete projects can demonstrate concrete, quantifiable daily losses that money damages can't adequately address.

National Security Claims Require Specificity

The government presented classified evidence in both cases. The judges reviewed it. Neither found it sufficient to justify complete construction halts.

This is significant. Courts are willing to examine national security rationales, even in classified proceedings. Conclusory assertions don't survive scrutiny. Agencies must articulate specific, factual bases for their actions, even in sensitive contexts.

The Precedent Extends Beyond Wind

These rulings apply the same legal standards that govern all federal project approvals: pipelines, transmission lines, mines, data centers on leased federal land. The principle that agencies can't suspend substantially complete projects without specific justification echoes across sectors. Developers in the clean energy sector and beyond should take note.

The government hasn't yet appealed either ruling. If it does and loses at the appellate level, the precedent becomes even stronger. Watch for DOJ's next move.

Practical Takeaways

Track the Dominion ruling. If Judge Walker grants a preliminary injunction tomorrow, we'll have three-for-three in different courts with different judges. That's as close to settled law as you get without appellate review.

Review your APA exposure. If your projects depend on federal permits or leases, understand the procedural requirements agencies must follow before modifying or revoking them. These rulings confirm that courts enforce those requirements.

Document your reliance. Both successful injunction motions emphasized billions in investment based on approved permits. If you're building on federal approvals, maintain clear records of expenditures and reliance interests.

Prepare for appeals. The administration hasn't indicated its appellate strategy. If it appeals, injunctions may remain in place during review, but the uncertainty extends. Build that scenario into your planning.

Consider the Maryland signal. Maryland proceeded with its January 16 offshore wind PPA procurement deadline despite federal uncertainty. States are betting on these legal outcomes. If you're in the offshore wind supply chain, state-level demand signals remain strong.

What We're Watching

This article is a follow-up to our January 5 analysis, "Offshore Wind Projects Sue the Federal Government: What Project Developers Need to Know About the January 16 Showdown." That article outlined the legal theories now being validated by federal courts.