Posted on November 19, 2025
Massachusetts sued the Trump administration in May to end its wind-power freeze. “Ten months in, I mean, is there an end in sight?” Judge Patti B. Saris asked the government Tuesday.
BOSTON — Attorneys for Massachusetts and the federal government returned to court Tuesday to argue, again, over whether President Donald Trump’s memo freezing all offshore wind permitting should be vacated — a freeze going on 10 months with no end date, per the latest information shared with the judge.
Judge Patti B. Saris took over for Judge William G. Young, who could no longer take the case for “personal reasons,” said Saris during a status conference last week. Saris requested the parties present oral arguments Tuesday to help her get up to speed.
During the status conference last week, Saris said she wants to know if the comprehensive assessment of wind projects has an end date. The Trump wind memo, issued on Jan. 20, his first day in office, also called for a project-wide assessment of offshore wind. The review is still pending.
“Ten months in, I mean, is there an end in sight?” Saris asked Tuesday.
“We do not anticipate an end date yet,” replied U.S. Department of Justice attorney Michael Robertson. “But part of that is because just the voluminous nature of review that’s going on.” He later called the freeze a “temporary pause.”
“I suppose the word ‘temporary’ is in the eyes of the beholder,” Saris said. “I’ve seen these reviews of government, and sometimes it takes three or four years to do these regulatory processes… That was true under the Biden administration too. That’s what was frustrating to the people who wanted the oil and gas leases. It is indefinite and long… not temporary in any normal sense of the word.”
Robertson said “there is action happening” with the project-wide review. “Agencies are consulting within their own agencies,” and NOAA has sent a “robust set of materials” to the Interior Department, he said. He gave an unclear description about when NOAA had sent the materials, stating that it was before the U.S. Senate made its appropriations at the end of September.
An Interior spokesperson on Tuesday declined to answer questions about materials sent to the agency by NOAA, stating it does not comment on litigation.
A NOAA spokesperson in an email Tuesday said the information provided to Interior “was a scientific record of events from NOAA career scientists that was recorded prior to the Trump Administration.”
As another example of activity, Robertson cited a secretarial order from July that directed an assistant secretary to, within 45 days, submit a report to Interior Secretary Douglas Burgum consistent with the wind memo that “describes and provides recommendations” on the impacts of wind on birds, mammals, fisheries, economic costs, and military readiness.
Interior did not immediately respond as to whether or when that report was received by Burgum. The Light has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the report.
Massachusetts Deputy Attorney General Turner Smith cast doubt on it: “We’ve heard nothing about that report. There’s no sign of it as far as we can tell.”
“There is no hope that [permits] will be issued,” said Smith. “There is no timeline for this comprehensive assessment.”
“We’re here at [10] months and counting and the government has achieved its objective by putting a stoppage across board,” said James Auslander, attorney for intervenor party Alliance for Clean Energy New York. He stated that the federal government is “banking on the judicial process taking a long time.”
Audio connection cut out for about five minutes during the hearing. But from the information The Light heard and a draft transcript it reviewed, some of which is quoted, Robertson provided no end date for the project-wide review.
Robertson spent much of his time arguing that the states are using the wrong legal tools to challenge the federal government under the Administrative Procedure Act. He suggested the states could take the federal government to court on a project-specific basis to address their concerns, instead of undertaking a “vague attack” on agencies’ decisions to follow the wind memo.
Throughout the hearing, Saris asked the parties to point her to any case precedent at the federal District Court or Supreme Court level that could help guide her decision making for this case. The parties offered possible cases to consult.
Her predecessor, Judge Young, last appeared for the case in September, when he expressed skepticism about the states’ arguments. Young had said that Trump has made his position against offshore wind very clear. He asked, if he were to rule in favor of the states (and against the memo), what change it would make for the projects that have been stuck in permitting limbo.
Young had been expected to issue a decision following that hearing. In June, he partially allowed and partially denied the states’ several claims against the federal government over the wind memo.
Since September, not much has changed, argued the states. Neither the states nor the federal government filed new information for Saris to review.
Massachusetts and more than a dozen other states are asking Saris to rule that Trump’s wind memo is illegal and vacate it.
Without resolution to this case, wind developers and states currently negotiating contracts to purchase project power are left with significant uncertainty that can derail such agreements.
For SouthCoast Wind, which has featured as a prominent voice in the lawsuit — and the only developer voice — it’s looking at a Dec. 31 deadline to reach a tentative contract with Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) Commissioner Elizabeth Mahony said in court filings earlier this year that the “continuation of the Wind Directive is an impediment to SouthCoast Wind” executing an agreement with the state.
SouthCoast Wind CEO Michael Brown, in a separate filing, previously told the court that without resolution, “it may be impossible for the parties to execute the [power purchase agreements],” and the company will be “forced to abandon” negotiations with Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Since that declaration, the project has lost Rhode Island, with the state confirming last week that it had dropped out of negotiations due to federal uncertainty. The Ocean State had planned to purchase only 200 megawatts of the 1,200-megawatt project.
Asked if Massachusetts would be willing to buy all 1,200 megawatts, a DOER spokesperson did not directly address the question, and then declined comment.
“Massachusetts is continuing contract negotiations with the selected projects,” said Lauren Diggin for DOER in an email last week. “Massachusetts is pursuing an all-of-the-above approach — including offshore wind — to bring more energy into the state to meet rising demand.”
As the wind memo remains under review (and in effect), the offshore wind industry — particularly planned projects — has stalled significantly. After projects that are under construction are completed, it’s unclear if the next phase in the pipeline will start installation under the Trump administration.
Attorneys general from the following states are challenging the wind memo through this suit, filed in May: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. The District of Columbia is also a party.
At the close of Tuesday’s hearing, which lasted an hour, Saris said she felt she had a better grasp on the case after oral arguments, but gave no indication as to when she might issue a ruling.
