During the week of Jan. 12, 2026, three federal judges granted preliminary injunctions in three separate cases filed by offshore wind developers challenging a Dec. 22, 2025, stop-work order that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued to all five offshore wind projects under construction in federal waters: Revolution Wind, offshore New England; Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind, both offshore New York; Vineyard Wind 1, offshore Massachusetts; and the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project, offshore Virginia. The orders will allow three of the five projects – Revolution Wind, Empire Wind, and CVOW – to continue construction while courts decide the merits of the cases.

The Department of the Interior premised its December stop-work order on asserted national security concerns related to radar interference, as the Department of Defense (DOD) described in a newly-issued classified report. Project proponents contested the validity of the concerns, stating publicly that the original permitting process for the wind farms included review and approval by DOD.

Judge Royce Lamberth of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued the first stay and injunction on Jan. 12, 2026, to Orsted, the developer of Revolution Wind. Revolution Wind is roughly 87% complete, with 58 of its 65 wind turbines installed, and was scheduled to be fully operational in 2026. President Donald Trump’s administration had initially halted construction on Revolution Wind in August 2025 based on unspecified national security concerns. At that time, Orsted sued alongside the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island, which will receive power from the project when it becomes operational, and Judge Lamberth granted an injunction in September that allowed work on Revolution Wind to continue. Judge Lamberth did not issue a written order explaining his reasons for granting the latest injunction, but he reportedly explained from the bench that he had reviewed the classified report supporting BOEM’s order – which the agency had not provided to the developers – and suggested that the national security concerns were not as serious as the administration had represented. He noted that, after receiving the report, BOEM took a month to act on it. He also stated that BOEM did not adequately explain how the project posed national security risks or how a halt to construction would address those risks. The judge further pointed to public remarks administration officials made suggesting a general animus towards wind power, including interviews with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum that focused on offshore wind’s costs, impacts on wildlife, and other issues unrelated to national security. Thus, he ruled that the “purportedly new classified information does not constitute a sufficient explanation for the bureau’s decision to entirely stop work on the Revolution Wind project.”

On Jan. 15, 2026, Judge Carl Nichols of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction blocking another stop-work order for Empire Wind, which is approximately 60% complete and is scheduled to become operational in 2027. (Empire Wind also received a stop-work order in April 2025, which was lifted by the Trump administration in May 2025 without litigation.) According to media reports, Judge Nichols explained his decision on a telephone call with the parties, in which he said that Empire Wind had demonstrated that its project faced irreparable harm from the pause on construction and demonstrated a likelihood that it would eventually prevail in its lawsuit, which alleged that the government’s actions were arbitrary and capricious.

And on Jan. 16, 2026, Judge Jamar Walker of the federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an injunction allowing construction to proceed on CVOW, which is projected to be completed and begin delivering power in late 2026. Judge Walker reportedly explained that the evidence did not indicate an imminent national security risk, nor the necessity for a stop-work order.  

Orsted has also sued to block the stop-work order directed to Sunrise Wind, which is nearly halfway complete. A court has scheduled a Feb. 2, 2026, hearing for that case. Similarly, the developers of Vineyard Wind filed a suit against the stop-work order directed to that project on Jan. 15, 2026, and the state of New York has also sued to block the stop-work order relating to both Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind.

These developments come only a month after a Dec. 8, 2025, ruling in New York v. Trump, in which a Massachusetts federal judge addressed the Trump administration’s moratorium on permitting and approvals for all wind energy projects nationwide. In that case, the court vacated orders from several federal agencies implementing that moratorium on permitting and approvals for wind energy projects.

Update: Since this blog post was originally published, two additional decisions granted injunctions against the government’s stop-work orders, allowing all five paused offshore wind projects to resume construction while their lawsuits against the stop-work orders proceed. Vineyard Wind obtained an injunction on Jan. 27, 2026, from the federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and Sunrise Wind obtained an injunction from the federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 2, 2026. The order in favor of Sunrise Wind was issued by the same judge as the order involving Revolution Wind, who stated in court that he relied on the same reasoning as his previous ruling and the other rulings in favor of offshore wind developers in recent weeks. In sum, all five offshore wind developers have obtained preliminary injunctions allowing construction on their offshore wind projects to proceed despite the Trump administration’s stop-work order, and another court declared the administration’s moratorium on wind permitting unlawful. While final decisions on the merits of the cases challenging the offshore wind stop-work order remain to be considered, the developers have claimed victory in all of the preliminary injunction hearings thus far. This may suggest that the government faces an uphill battle where it seeks to stop major infrastructure projects that received prior approval and have advanced in their construction.

Tags: BOEM, offshore wind, Trump administration
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Ed Roggenkamp Ed Roggenkamp

Ed Roggenkamp is an environmental attorney with over a decade of experience resolving complex litigation and regulatory matters. In his litigation practice, Ed uses his skills as a former professional actor and teacher to help his clients in court by crafting a compelling

…

Ed Roggenkamp is an environmental attorney with over a decade of experience resolving complex litigation and regulatory matters. In his litigation practice, Ed uses his skills as a former professional actor and teacher to help his clients in court by crafting a compelling story for the judge or jury and explaining complex technical concepts so that they are easy to understand. His litigation practice has included challenges to environmental impact reviews for infrastructure projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its state equivalents, cases seeking recovery of remediation costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and related state statutes and common-law torts, toxic tort claims, and enforcement actions and citizen suits under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and other environmental statutes. Ed has been lead counsel on CERCLA cases through summary judgment, and has deep experience with all aspects of discovery, including work with expert witnesses, taking and defending depositions, motion practice, and settlement negotiations.

Ed advises project developers and financing parties on siting and permitting requirements for infrastructure and energy projects, including both renewable and traditional electricity generation, and has advised a renewable industry trade association on the application of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act to offshore wind development. Ed advises clients on the environmental aspects of corporate transactions and project development, such as pre-purchase environmental due diligence (Phase I/Phase II reports), indemnity provisions, representations and warranties relating to environmental matters, brownfield redevelopment, and regulatory compliance. He has advised on numerous transactions involving the energy sector, including power purchase agreements for utility-scale solar, purchases and sales of fossil-fuel-fired power plants, wind farms, and proposed offshore wind developments on the East Coast, and NEPA review and protected species mitigation measures for electric transmission lines. Ed’s extensive litigation experience helps him to advise clients on ways to reduce litigation risk during the siting and permitting phase of project development. His government service includes advising on NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act compliance for clean energy and infrastructure projects, including electric transmission lines, industrial redevelopment projects, and hydroelectric generation incentives.

Ed has worked extensively with technical and scientific experts in both litigation and development work. In the litigation context, this has focused on the remediation of real estate contaminated by historic industrial operations. He has experience with the remediation of chlorinated solvents, metals, petroleum products, and other contaminants of concern, and with the remediation of manufactured gas plants, municipal landfills, petroleum storage sites, mine tailings, and industrial sites in various sectors including automobiles, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and dyes. In the litigation context, this has included both affirmative and defensive work with environmental experts such as engineers and toxicologists, and non-environmental experts such as property appraisers and commercial leasing experts.

Outside of litigation, Ed has experience in NEPA review for electric transmission lines and offshore wind farms, and has also advised on best practices for aligning the environmental impact review process with the requirements of NEPA in order to minimize litigation risk and public opposition. He has also worked alongside environmental engineers to guide the remediation of contaminated real estate, in order to help his clients seeking minimize health risks and remediation costs, avoid liability, comply with state brownfield cleanup program requirements, proactively take steps to increase the likelihood of recovering costs from insurers and other liable parties.

Ed has presented regularly on a wide variety of environmental and energy law issues, and spent several years as the primary editor of the climate change and Clean Air Act section of a legal treatise on environmental enforcement.

Prior to joining Greenberg Traurig, Ed served as an attorney-advisor for the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Ed's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Steven C. Russo Steven C. Russo

Steven C. Russo co-chairs the Environmental Practice and chairs the firm’s New York Environmental Practice. He focuses his practice on environmental law and litigation, permitting, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, energy project siting, renewable energy, Brownfields

…

Steven C. Russo co-chairs the Environmental Practice and chairs the firm’s New York Environmental Practice. He focuses his practice on environmental law and litigation, permitting, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, energy project siting, renewable energy, Brownfields redevelopment, toxic tort litigation, including emerging contaminants, environmental crimes, government law and policy and the environmental review and permitting, environmental due diligence and risk management, and the environmental components of land use and real estate law. Steven is equally experienced litigating in federal and state courts, as well as counseling his clients with regard to the development of major industrial, energy and residential development projects. He also practices election and campaign finance law.

Prior to joining the firm, Steven was the Chief Legal Officer of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. There, he supervised approximately 90 attorneys in Albany, as well as the agency’s nine regional offices. He also supervised the agency’s legislative affairs department and Office of Environmental Justice. At the agency, Steven initiated a reform of the state’s environmental impact review regulations and assessment forms, completed the issuance of new power plant siting regulations pertaining to environmental justice and carbon emissions, and revised the agency’s environmental audit policy.

Read more about Steven C. Russo
Show more Show less
Photo of Courtney M. Shephard Courtney M. Shephard

Courtney Shephard guides energy companies through complex regulatory landscapes in the Rocky Mountain West. Her experience spans conventional and low-carbon energy production, with a focus on federal regulatory compliance, permitting strategies, and resolving enforcement matters.

At the core of Courtney’s work is her

…

Courtney Shephard guides energy companies through complex regulatory landscapes in the Rocky Mountain West. Her experience spans conventional and low-carbon energy production, with a focus on federal regulatory compliance, permitting strategies, and resolving enforcement matters.

At the core of Courtney’s work is her comprehensive approach to environmental compliance. She adeptly maneuvers through complex federal mandates—including NEPA, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act requirements—and handles federal administrative appeals. Her experience includes crafting site-specific development strategies for localized development challenges that with the goal of achieving both environmental protection and development objectives.

Leveraging her background in climate policy analysis, carbon market dynamics, and emissions accounting, Courtney collaborates with clients to develop comprehensive carbon management strategies. Her practice includes methane and CO2 reduction strategies, Class VI storage permitting, and pore space acquisitions. She also represents clients in rulemaking and permitting proceedings before the Colorado Energy & Carbon Management Commission.

Access to adequate water supplies is a common project development challenge in the arid western United States. Courtney has more than a decade of experience working with private and municipal clients to appropriate, buy/sell, change, and protect water rights through private transactions and Colorado water court proceedings.

Courtney’s strategic vision and comprehensive understanding of regulatory frameworks have been instrumental in advancing numerous energy and infrastructure projects throughout the region. Her ability to synthesize complex regulatory requirements with practical business needs make her an asset to clients navigating the ever-changing energy landscape.

Show more Show less
Related Posts
Aerial Drone View Wind Turbine
As the Wind Turbine Turns: When Can a Federal Agency Change Its Mind?
January 20, 2026
Sea Horizon Electric Wind Generator
Federal Judge Vacates Trump Administration’s Halt to Wind Energy Permitting
December 17, 2025
Gray Wolf (1)
Wildlife Agencies Issue Four Proposed Rules to Revert Endangered Species Act Practices to 2019 Interpretations
November 21, 2025