Filed Date: June 2, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about a coalition of Northeastern states trying to save an offshore wind project large enough to power more than a million homes after the federal government canceled the lease and agreed to refund the developer $795 million, which the developer committed to spend on oil and gas instead.
On June 2, 2026, the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont, together with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The seven states, each represented by its attorney general, sued the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and those agencies' senior officials in their official capacities, along with Attentive Energy LLC as an interested party. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the states alleged that DOI's cancellation of offshore wind lease OCS-A 0538 and the associated settlement agreement that produced it were arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and beyond the government's statutory authority. They sought a declaration that the cancellation and settlement were unlawful, an order vacating both, a permanent injunction against their implementation, and attorneys' fees and costs. The court assigned the case to District Judge Timothy J. Kelly.
The lease at issue, which covered over 84,000 acres in the New York Bight, had been awarded to Attentive Energy LLC in February 2022 following a competitive auction in which Attentive bid $795 million, making it the highest-grossing competitive offshore energy lease sale in U.S. history. The lease area was expected to support more than 2.7 gigawatts of wind capacity (enough to power over 1.3 million homes). Both New York and New Jersey had incorporated the lease into their long-term statutory energy planning targets. On March 23, 2026, DOI announced a "Settlement Agreement" with TotalEnergies–Attentive to cancel the lease and reimburse Attentive from the federal Judgment Fund; in exchange, TotalEnergies agreed to invest those funds in oil and gas projects and to develop no new U.S. offshore wind projects.
The complaint alleged that the cancellation was not a genuine arm's-length settlement, that TotalEnergies' own CEO acknowledged the company had proposed the deal, and that the stated national security rationale was pretextual given numerous public statements by federal officials characterizing wind energy as a "scam" and expressing a goal of halting all wind development. The plaintiffs asserted five claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), seeking declaratory relief, vacatur of both the lease cancellation and the Settlement Agreement, and injunctive relief.
The lease at the center of the case covered more than 84,000 acres in the New York Bight, the stretch of ocean between Long Island and the New Jersey coast. Attentive Energy, a subsidiary of TotalEnergies, had won the lease at a competitive auction in 2022 for $795 million, and the project was expected to generate enough electricity to power more than 1.3 million homes in New York and New Jersey. Both states had built the project into their long-term plans for grid reliability, energy diversification, and statutory climate goals, and the New England states expected to benefit through the regional electricity and renewable-energy-credit markets. According to the complaint, after President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, his administration moved systematically to halt wind energy development, and DOI Secretary Douglas Burgum repeatedly disparaged offshore wind energy. In March 2026, DOI announced an agreement with TotalEnergies to cancel the lease, reimburse the company the $795 million it had paid, and have the company redirect that sum into oil and gas development. DOI formally canceled the lease in April 2026.
The states brought five claims (all but one under the APA) challenging the cancellation and the settlement on multiple grounds. They alleged that the lease cancellation was arbitrary and capricious because the Interior failed to explain its reversal, account for the states' reliance interests, or consider alternatives. Instead, the states allege that DOI proffered only unspecified, classified national security concerns as justification. They further alleged that the cancellation violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because DOI conducted no environmental review, and violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) because DOI canceled the lease without the required hearing, findings, and consultation with the affected states' governors. The states also challenged the settlement agreement itself, contending that it violated OCSLA and the Judgment Fund Act by routing $795 million from the Judgment Fund to Attentive even though no genuine or imminent litigation existed to settle, and that it was ultra vires because no statute authorized the government to cancel a wind lease and redirect the payment to unrelated fossil-fuel projects.
The suit was one of several challenges to the administration's wind-energy rollback. It relied heavily on an earlier ruling in which a federal court in Massachusetts vacated the administration's broader wind-leasing pause. This litigation is documented in the Clearinghouse as State of New York v. Trump.
As of July 2026, the case is ongoing in its early stages. No defendant has yet responded to the complaint. The federal defendants' answer was due in early August 2026, and Attentive Energy had been ordered to respond by August 10, 2026. Further, no dispositive motions have been filed, and no court opinion has been issued.
Summary Authors
(6/7/2026)
Simon Jillson (7/31/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73426597/parties/state-of-new-york-v-us-department-of-the-interior/
Kelly, Timothy James (District of Columbia)
Dimenstein, Libby (District of Columbia)
Elwell, Caleb Edward (District of Columbia)
Levine, Matthew I. (District of Columbia)
Desta, Yoseph T. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73426597/state-of-new-york-v-us-department-of-the-interior/
Last updated Aug. 1, 2026, 4:09 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 2, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Seven states and commonwealths (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont), each suing in its sovereign capacity through its attorney general.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of the Interior
Private Entity/Person
Attentive Energy LLC
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
National Environmental Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370f
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01910
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Environmental Justice and Resources:
Environmental Impact Statements
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Case Summary of New York v. U.S. Department of the Interior, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48197/ (last updated 7/31/2026).