A federal judge on Monday invalidated a directive issued by President Donald Trump that had blocked the advancement of wind energy projects nationwide. The order — formally titled the “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects” and commonly referred to as the Wind Memo — was signed on Jan. 20, 2025.

It instructed federal agencies to suspend new or renewed permits, leases, rights-of-way, and other approvals for both onshore and offshore wind developments while the administration reassessed federal wind policy.

U.S. District Judge Patti Saris of the District of Massachusetts, a Clinton appointee, ruled that federal agencies’ implementation of the memo was unlawful, effectively blocking the administration from enforcing its restrictions on wind energy approvals.

Seventeen states, Washington, D.C., and the advocacy group Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY) filed suit challenging the directive, arguing that the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Judge Saris agreed, ruling Monday that the administration’s halt on wind project approvals was “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA. She further concluded that the freeze was “contrary to law,” noting that federal agencies are obligated to process permit applications within a reasonable timeframe.

Saris wrote in her decision that federal agencies had not provided any substantive justification for suspending permit activity other than citing the presidential directive. She also found that the agencies failed to meaningfully evaluate the relevant factors or conduct the necessary analysis before implementing the freeze, falling short of the procedural requirements of federal administrative law.

“This scant administrative record makes clear, and the agency defendants do not meaningfully dispute, that the agency defendants have not ‘reasonably considered the relevant issues and reasonably explained the[ir] decision’ to implement the Wind Order,” Saris wrote in her ruling. She added that the defendants “candidly concede that the sole factor they considered in deciding to stop issuing permits was the president’s direction to do so.”

Her ruling entirely vacated the memo, ending the nationwide freeze.

“Under Joe Biden’s Green New Scam, offshore wind projects were given unfair, preferential treatment while the rest of the energy industry was hindered by burdensome regulations,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“President Trump’s day one executive order instructed agencies to review leases and permitting practices for wind projects with consideration for our country’s growing demands for reliable energy, effects on energy costs for American families, the importance of marine life and the fishing industry, and the impacts on ocean currents and wind patterns,” he added.

“President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security,” he said.

It’s not clear how a federal judge can vacate President Trump’s order ending wind projects, but then-President Biden was allowed to issue an executive order ending construction on the XL pipeline, for which billions of dollars had already been spent.

Biden’s candid campaign promise to ‘end fossil fuel production’ in the U.S. seems to embody the very definition of “arbitrary and capricious.”

The Justice Department indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James earlier this year for allegedly engaging in mortgage fraud, and she celebrated the ruling.

“We won our lawsuit and stopped the Trump administration from blocking an array of new wind energy projects. This is a big victory in our fight to keep tackling the climate crisis and protect one of our best sources of clean, reliable, and affordable energy,” James wrote on X.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell also praised Saris’ ruling, saying, “This critical victory also preserves well-paying green jobs and access to reliable, affordable energy that will help Massachusetts meet our clean energy and climate goals.”

It’s not clear if the administration will appeal, though that seems highly likely.