Court: “Because Trump said to” may not be a legally valid defense

In one of those cases, a judge lifted the construction suspension, ruling that the lack of a solid justification for the suspension made it “the height of arbitrary and capricious,” a legal standard that determines whether federal decision-making is acceptable under the Administrative Procedure Act. If this were a fictional story, it would be considered foreshadowing.

With no indication of how long the full review would take, 17 states sued to lift the suspension of permits. They were joined by the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, which represents companies that build wind projects or power their supply chains. The plaintiffs and the sued agencies requested summary judgment in this case.

The first question addressed by Judge Saris is that of the quality of the situation: are the States suffering appreciable harm due to the suspension of wind projects? She emphasized that they would receive tax revenue from the projects, that their citizens should see a reduction in energy costs upon completion, and that the projects were intended to contribute to their climate goals, thereby limiting harm to their citizens. At one point, Saris even called the government’s attempts to claim that parties lacked status “pushing at windmills.”

The government also argued that the suspension was not a final decision – which would come after the review – and therefore did not fall under the Administrative Procedures Act. But Saris ruled that the decision to suspend all activities pending adoption of the regulation was the end of a decision-making process and was not reconsidered by the government, so it was qualified.

Because Trump told us so

With those basics out of the way, Saris turned to the heart of the matter, which included the question of whether the agencies had been involved in any decision-making. “Agency Defendants contend that because they ‘merely followed’ the Wind Memo ‘as [Wind Memo] itself orders,” the Wind order does not constitute a “decision” and therefore no reasoned explanation is required,” its decision states. She concludes that precedent at the circuit court level blocks this defense because it would mean agencies would be exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act whenever the president tells them to do anything.