In one such case, a judge overturned a construction stay, ruling that the lack of a compelling basis for the stay made it “the highest arbitrariness and caprice”—the legal standard that determines whether federal decision-making is acceptable under the Administrative Procedure Act. If this were a fictional story, it would be considered an omen.
With no indication of how long the comprehensive assessment would take, 17 states sued to overturn the permit freeze. They were joined by the New York Clean Energy Alliance, which represents companies that build wind energy projects or power their supply chain. Both the plaintiffs and the sued agencies sought summary judgment.
The first question Judge Saris raised remains the same: Are states being harmed by the suspension of wind projects? She noted that they will receive tax revenue from the projects, that their citizens should see reduced energy costs once they are completed, and that the projects are intended to help meet their climate goals, thereby limiting harm to their citizens. At one point, Saris even called the government's attempts to claim that the parties had no reputation as “tilting at windmills.”
The government also argued that the suspension was not a final decision – it would be made after a review – and therefore did not fall under the Administrative Procedures Act. But Saris ruled that the decision to suspend all activity pending the rule was the end of the decision-making process and was not subject to government review, so it met the criteria.
Because Trump told us
Leaving those basics aside, Saris got to the heart of the matter, which involved considering whether the agencies were involved in any decisions at all. “Agency Defendants contend that because they 'simply followed' the Wind Memorandum, 'as [Wind Memo] She concludes that precedent at the district court level blocks this protection because it would mean that agencies would be exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act whenever the president orders them to do something.
