Case: Virginia Electric and Power Company v. United States Department of the Interior

This case challenges the U.S. Department of the Interior’s decision to halt construction of a fully permitted offshore wind energy project off the coast of Virginia.

On December 23, 2025, Virginia Electric and Power Company, d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia, and OSW Project LLC (collectively, “DEV”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the United States Department of the Interior; the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”), a federal agency within the Department of the Interior; Douglas Burgum, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; and Matthew Giacona, in his official capacity as BOEM Acting Director. The complaint sought declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief vacating BOEM’s stop-work order for the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Project (“the Project”) and enjoining BOEM from maintaining or implementing the order or similar actions.

According to the complaint, the Project had received all required federal, state, and local approvals, including BOEM approval of a Construction and Operations Plan following multi-year environmental and national security review under the National Environmental Policy Act and consultation with numerous agencies. Construction had proceeded on the Outer Continental Shelf and onshore since early 2024, and the Project was projected to begin generating electricity in early 2026. On December 22, 2025, BOEM abruptly issued a one-page Director’s Order directing DEV to immediately stop work on the Project. The complaint alleged the Order made no Project-specific findings, alleged no violation or deficiency by DEV, and provided no advance notice or opportunity to be heard. It further alleged DEV had spent approximately $8.9 billion toward the Project and that the stoppage was causing immediate irreparable harm through major daily costs and schedule disruption for specialized vessels, equipment, and labor.

The complaint asserted four causes of action. First (Count I), DEV alleged BOEM’s Order violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it conflicted with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act’s orderly-development framework, BOEM’s Part 585 regulations, and the binding terms of the Project’s lease and BOEM-approved Construction and Operations Plan. DEV contended BOEM’s reliance on 30 C.F.R. § 585.417 did not authorize an untethered stop-work directive, and that the Order effectively functioned as an unlawful suspension of approvals without the compliance triggers and procedural protections built into BOEM’s regulations, lease and plan terms, and APA § 558(c).

Second (Count II), DEV alleged the Order independently violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious because it reversed prior approvals without a reasoned, evidence-based explanation. The complaint emphasized the Order’s one-page, conclusory nature; its failure to identify new Project-specific facts; and its failure to grapple with reliance interests, costs, and alternatives—while singling out offshore wind despite prior agency analyses and court decisions upholding similar reviews and conditions.

Third (Count III), DEV brought a claim under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, under 43 U.S.C. § 1349, alleging the Order violated that statute and its implementing regulations by disregarding the statutory and regulatory procedures governing offshore leasing and project administration. DEV alleged the Order immediately affected its legal interests and sought relief under that provision’s remedial framework, including fees.

Fourth (Count IV), DEV alleged the Order violated the U.S. Constitution’s Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) and the Fifth Amendment. DEV alleged the stop-work directive impaired property interests conferred by its lease and approvals without due process because BOEM provided neither notice nor an opportunity for a hearing. DEV also alleged the Order was ultra vires and inconsistent with separation-of-powers limits because Congress’s Property Clause legislation—including the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act—constrained when and how the Executive could interfere with fully permitted projects.

The plaintiffs sought vacatur of the December 22, 2025 stop-work Order; declaratory relief that the Order violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the Constitution; and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief preventing implementation of the Order.

On December 23, 2025, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate relief from the stop-work directive. The court initially scheduled an expedited hearing, but on December 28, 2025, converted the request into a motion for preliminary injunction and set a hearing for January 16, 2026, while directing the government to submit for in camera review any classified information it contended supported the order.

Plaintiffs filed their memorandum in support of the motion on January 9, 2026, along with supporting declarations and exhibits.

The government filed its opposition on January 12, 2026, and two days later, on January 14, 2026, the plaintiffs filed their reply.

After expedited briefing and the filing of several amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs, the court held a hearing on January 16, 2026. That same day, for reasons stated from the bench, Judge Walker granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and stayed BOEM’s December 22, 2025 stop-work order pending further proceedings. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act claim, had demonstrated likely irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. The court required plaintiffs to post a $100 bond, which they did.

The case remains ongoing.