Offshore Wind Projects Successfully Challenge BOEM Suspension Orders

JD Supra Environment & Energy

Filed December 22nd, 2025

Detected March 28th, 2026

Summary

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued suspension orders for five offshore wind projects, citing national security concerns. Developers successfully challenged these orders in court, obtaining preliminary injunctions by February 2, 2026, arguing the suspensions were arbitrary and capricious.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued 90-day suspension orders for five offshore wind projects off the U.S. East Coast, citing classified national security concerns and invoking its regulatory authority under 30 C.F.R. § 585.417(b). The projects, with capacities ranging from 700 MW to over 2 GW, were challenged by their developers who argued the orders were arbitrary, capricious, procedurally unlawful, and caused irreparable harm. By February 2, 2026, all developers obtained preliminary injunctions against these suspensions.

Courts found BOEM's suspensions likely arbitrary and capricious, noting a lack of detail regarding "new" national security concerns that contradicted prior approvals and mitigation agreements. Concerns were also raised regarding the lack of notice and opportunity to correct issues, as well as the potential for irreparable harm due to sunk costs and project timelines. The successful challenges mean that construction and development activities on these projects can likely resume, pending further resolution of BOEM's stated national security concerns.

What to do next

Review BOEM's current stance on national security concerns for offshore wind projects.
Assess potential impacts of national security considerations on project timelines and approvals.
Consult legal counsel regarding any new or revised BOEM directives or guidance.

Source document (simplified)

March 27, 2026

Offshore Wind Projects Find Success in U.S. Courts

LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

On December 22, 2025 the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ("BOEM") issued an order suspending all ongoing activities related to five offshore wind projects in the development stage for 90 days citing national security concerns (the "Suspension Orders"). The projects are off the coast of New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Virginia, and have expected capacities ranging from 700 MW to over 2 GW. Each of the project developers challenged the stop work order, stating that the order was arbitrary and capricious, procedurally unlawful, and irreparably harmful. By February 2, 2026, all of the projects obtained preliminary injunctions.

BOEM Issuance of Suspension Orders

BOEM grounded its suspensions in its 30 C.F.R. § 585.417(b) regulatory authority to issue a 90‑day suspension. BOEM framed its actions as necessary to address "new" or "additional" classified national security information from the Department of Defense/Department of War, emphasizing the East Coast projects' sensitive locations and the risk of serious, immediate, and irreparable harm.

Across projects, BOEM argued that national security concerns were paramount and that BOEM possessed broad discretion under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 to suspend project activities based on newly developed classified assessments. It asserted that the agency's judgments should receive deference and that courts should not second‑guess classified determinations in preliminary injunction proceedings.

Developers' Efforts to Obtain Preliminary Injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders
Each of the projects challenged the Suspension Orders, arguing that the orders were arbitrary and capricious. The developers argued that the Suspension Orders were arbitrary and capricious because they rested on conclusory national security assertions that conflicted with prior, multi-year approvals and agency positions confirming no national security interference. The Suspension Orders provided no details on the concerns, and BOEM refused to provide any further information.

The developers also challenged the procedure as unlawful. The Suspension Orders were sent with no notice or prior hearing and provided no reasoning other than the assertion of "impacts to national security from offshore wind projects." The developers pointed to the notice requirement in 30 C.F.R. § 585.106(b)-(c) and their own lease agreements with BOEM. BOEM also did not provide any opportunity for the developers to correct the concern.

Finally, the developers contended that irreparable harm would result from the Suspension Orders. The developers emphasized the sunk cost of the projects, with one project already almost 90% complete, along with scheduling windows and power purchase agreements that could be violated by delay.

Court Issuance of Preliminary Injunctions

Courts have proven receptive to the developers' arguments. Each of the Suspension Orders have now been enjoined. Courts emphasized the likely arbitrary and capricious nature of the Suspension Orders, stating that BOEM failed to explain what "new" national security concerns justified reversing years of interagency consultation and previously approved mitigation agreements, or why construction could not continue while concerns were addressed. The courts pointed to a disconnect in allowing other completed turbines to operate when the government's rationale was concerned with operation and not construction. Likewise, courts showed concern with the lack of notice provided and the irreparable harm that would likely result.

Subject projects will now be allowed to continue construction while the cases play out. Industry actors should follow these proceedings to understand how courts may interpret further actions by federal agencies targeting wind energy projects based on direction from presidential executive orders.

Read the full Climate Report.

Send Print Report

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.