On April 21, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction freezing several Trump administration policies that have imposed heightened permitting requirements on wind and solar projects. In Renew Northeast et al. v. DOI et al., renewable energy trade associations and advocacy groups asserted that various Trump administration energy policies targeting wind and solar permitting violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and caused irreparable harm to the renewable energy industry.
Among the challenged policies was a July 2025 Department of the Interior memorandum (Memo) that requires multiple layers of political approval for at least 68 different types of wind and solar permitting decisions, actions, consultations, and other undertakings, including review by Office of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the Office of the Deputy Secretary, and the Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs. The Memo also contains directives prioritizing “capacity dense” energy sources, which refers to sources such as power plants that produce more energy per area of land compared with a solar array.
Additionally, the court froze the administration’s implementation of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s July 2025 “IPaC Ban,” stemming from its announcement that solar and wind projects could not use the IPaC website to generate official species lists or effect determinations. According to the court, these measures have caused substantial delays in renewable permitting processes, will cause imminent harm to the plaintiffs, and lacked the reasoned explanation the APA requires for a shift in policy.
In granting injunctive relief, the court emphasized both the procedural deficiencies and the practical impacts of the policies, noting that they had already led to widespread project delays and cancellations. Industry groups presented evidence that tens of gigawatts of renewable capacity had been jeopardized, with significant downstream effects on investment, grid reliability, and energy costs. The court concluded that maintaining the status quo during litigation would likely exacerbate these harms, justifying immediate intervention and that the advocacy groups are “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the [Memo] violates the APA.”
While the injunction is preliminary, the decision signals continued litigation risk and uncertainty surrounding federal energy policy shifts, reinforcing the importance of APA compliance in agency rulemaking and guidance. Barclay Damon will continue to monitor the case and provide updates as more information becomes available.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Yvonne Hennessey, Environmental Practice Area chair, at yhennessey@barclaydamon.com; Tom Paul, partner, at tpaul@barclaydamon.com, Dan Krzykowski, associate, at dkrzykowski@barclaydamon.com; Matthew Gino, associate, at mgino@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Environmental Practice Area.