Following up on our previous posts on United States energy policy under the Trump Administration, we are writing with an update on recent State Attorney General (AG) action in response to the Trump Administration's climate and energy-focused executive actions. On May 9, in the Western District of Washington State, fifteen Democratic State AGs sued the Trump Administration challenging its executive order Declaring A National Energy Emergency (the "Energy Emergency EO").
In the EO, the President directed the "heads of executive departments and agencies" to use emergency authorities to expedite domestic fossil fuel and critical mineral projects, streamline permitting, and prioritize energy infrastructure, citing national security, high prices, and grid reliability concerns.
Led by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the plaintiffs in this litigation argue that the national energy emergency declared by Trump is unlawful. The lawsuit is a sweeping challenge to the Trump Administration's attempt to use emergency powers to accelerate fossil fuel projects and hamper wind and solar projects.
The heart of the complaint is the states' contention that the Energy Emergency EO unlawfully directs federal agencies to bypass critical environmental, historic, and cultural resource reviews by invoking emergency permitting procedures for energy-related projects—even though, according to plaintiffs, no actual emergency exists. The states argue that these emergency procedures, which are only meant for true emergencies like natural disasters or imminent threats to life and property, are being misapplied to fast-track hundreds of projects. They argue that this risks irreparable harm to waters, wetlands, endangered species, and historic sites. The complaint details how the order allegedly violates statutory and regulatory safeguards under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act, among others.
The states seek both declaratory and injunctive relief. They ask the court to declare the Energy Emergency EO unlawful and to find that the agencies' actions in implementing it are arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law. They also ask the court to enjoin any further use of emergency permitting for non-emergency projects. Further, the states seek to prevent federal agencies from circumventing state authority over water quality and other environmental protections, emphasizing the foundational principle of cooperative federalism embedded in these statutes.
As of this writing, the plaintiffs have not moved for any preliminary relief, and the defendants have not yet filed any response to the complaint.
The Trump Administration's ongoing assault on wind and solar energy is impacting thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in investments, and the reliability of the grid in Red and Blue states alike—not to mention clashing with some states' climate and clean energy goals. The lawsuit reflects a broader trend in multistate litigation, where Democratic-led states have joined together to challenge Trump Administration actions, particularly on environmental and regulatory issues.
Playing out in the face of increasing energy demands and rising costs, this case and the fate of the executive action it challenges will have significant implications for consumers' long-term energy bills, the future of the wind and solar industries, and the United States' ability to respond to climate change and the needs of an increasingly technologically-dependent world.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
