Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power Government United States

Trump Ban on Wind Energy Permits 'Unlawful', Court Rules (bbc.com) 139

A January order blocking wind energy projects in America has now been vacated by a U.S. judge and declared unlawful, reports the Associated Press: [Judge Saris of the U.S. district court for the district of Massachusetts] ruled in favor of a coalition of state attorneys general from 17 states and Washington DC, led by Letitia James, New York's attorney general, that challenged President Trump's day one order that paused leasing and permitting for wind energy projects... The coalition that opposed Trump's order argued that Trump does not have the authority to halt project permitting, and that doing so jeopardizes the states' economies, energy mix, public health and climate goals.

The coalition includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington state and Washington DC. They say they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars collectively to develop wind energy and even more on upgrading transmission lines to bring wind energy to the electrical grid...

Wind is the United States' largest source of renewable energy, providing about 10% of the electricity generated in the nation, according to the American Clean Power Association.

But the BBC quotes Timothy Fox, managing director at the Washington, DC-based research firm ClearView Energy Partners, as saying he doesn't expect the ruling to reinvigorate the industry: "It's more symbolic than substantive," he said. "All the court is saying is ... you need to go back to work and consider these applications. What does that really mean?" he said. Officials could still deny permits or bog applications down in lengthy reviews, he noted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Ban on Wind Energy Permits 'Unlawful', Court Rules

Comments Filter:
  • by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Sunday December 14, 2025 @04:54AM (#65857131)

    The candidate-king of trumpistan and his electorate don't care about law and order?

    Wow.

    Who'd have thunk it, given the experience so far - him legitimizing blatant corruption, the numerous violations of the laws and the constitution by his minions and the well-known attempts to gain/keep power by gerrymandering and outright coup attempts.

    I'm so surprised, really.

    • by pele ( 151312 ) on Sunday December 14, 2025 @09:42AM (#65857375) Homepage

      Can someone calculate how much Trump cost american taxpayers with all these judicial processes? Must be into billions by now...not quite saving money, are we?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14, 2025 @11:44AM (#65857585)
        Every time he pardons someone, all the money that was spent on arresting and prosecuting that person was completely wasted. It absolutely is into the billions at this point.

        President Newsom will make sure he is prosecuted at both state and federal levels and his entire family and administration will wind up in prison, probably for life. If not federal 'pound me in the ass' prison, then a California supermax.

        An example must be made of anyone that tries to turn the presidency into a monarchy.
        • Every time he pardons someone, all the money that was spent on arresting and prosecuting that person was completely wasted. It absolutely is into the billions at this point.

          It's about two billion just for fines that will no longer be paid.

        • by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Monday December 15, 2025 @10:34AM (#65859263)

          Every time he pardons someone, all the money that was spent on arresting and prosecuting that person was completely wasted. It absolutely is into the billions at this point. President Newsom will make sure he is prosecuted at both state and federal levels and his entire family and administration will wind up in prison, probably for life. If not federal 'pound me in the ass' prison, then a California supermax. An example must be made of anyone that tries to turn the presidency into a monarchy.

          I call bullshit. The Democrats traditionally pull their own hand when it comes to setting an example. They don't want to see "the other side" use the precedent of prosecuting outgoing administrations if they set it by prosecuting outgoing administrations. I look for Donald to see a lot of written histories released about his time in office condemning him, but I highly doubt we'll see any actual legal moves against him or his people. Perhaps a sternly worded letter of intent, stating that he'd best keep away from the wheels of government in the future, but I don't believe any Democrat, even those ramped up and steeped in rhetoric today, will actually go after Trump if he can be removed from office when his time is up.

          The Democrats excel at two things:
          1. Saying the right things.
          2. Preventing themselves from doing those right things once given the opportunity. Perhaps, with the added point of making up incredible excuses why it was infeasible to even try to do the right things to begin with, and that anyone believing them must be some level of insane to have done so.

          I'm not saying they're as corrupt and shitty as the Republicans have become, but it's not like they're paragons of virtue themselves. And believing any of them will actually prosecute the current regime is ignoring the entire modern history of the party and its movements once in power.

          • by nmb3000 ( 741169 )

            I'm not saying they're as corrupt and shitty as the Republicans have become, but it's not like they're paragons of virtue themselves. And believing any of them will actually prosecute the current regime is ignoring the entire modern history of the party and its movements once in power.

            I think the term you're looking for is "Corporate Democrat", and I completely agree.

            Even though the term "socialism" is still almost poison in most of US politics, I think we need to embrace "social Democrat" to make clear the difference between status quo corporate Democrats and people advocating more of the progressive ideas of the early-mid 1900s and places like the Nordic countries. With some effort I think control of "socialism" as a damning label can be wretched away from the conservative pundits and

            • I'm not saying they're as corrupt and shitty as the Republicans have become, but it's not like they're paragons of virtue themselves. And believing any of them will actually prosecute the current regime is ignoring the entire modern history of the party and its movements once in power.

              I think the term you're looking for is "Corporate Democrat", and I completely agree.

              Even though the term "socialism" is still almost poison in most of US politics, I think we need to embrace "social Democrat" to make clear the difference between status quo corporate Democrats and people advocating more of the progressive ideas of the early-mid 1900s and places like the Nordic countries. With some effort I think control of "socialism" as a damning label can be wretched away from the conservative pundits and restored to have legitimate meaning in the political discussion. Bernie Sanders made decent progress on this all by himself, and probably would have succeeded if he'd been selected as the Democratic nominee.

              Even if someone disagrees with it, at least disagree on rational grounds.

              You've got more faith in the current political landscape than I do if you think you can somehow shoehorn in "rational grounds" when it comes to any form of discussion around labels. Especially labels like "social" in the "Social Democrat" meaning. This country is filled with irrationality and the politicians have all learned to play to that irrationality for votes. Or at least for "engagement."

      • It pales in comparison to the gajillions his tariffs are bringing in. /s
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday December 14, 2025 @09:37PM (#65858495) Homepage Journal

        Trump is going to be like Brexit. You can make some calculations, and the numbers are eye watering, but the true cost is much higher. The decline of a nation, the loss of soft power, the social problems and the lives permanently blighted by it.

    • by memory_register ( 6248354 ) on Sunday December 14, 2025 @10:19AM (#65857431)

      It was always a delay tactic and a signal that the government tap for wind projects had run dry, a forcing function meant to redirect dollars to nuclear. Nobody, Trump included, expected it would stand. And he got almost a year of what he wanted while it wound through the courts.

      • I thought it might have been a way to force a ruling that would prevent a Democrat President from doing the same to oil extraction and pipeline leases.
  • DOGE for courts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday December 14, 2025 @05:08AM (#65857145)

    Have they started creating a standard template yet in the name of reducing cost? It could look something like this:

    Trump {insert thing Trump did} is unlawful and against the constitution as can be seen by any idiot who has finished school. We therefore find in favour of {insert plaintiff's name}.

    • You should specify the level of school. One doesn't have to be a college grad to see these things
    • Welcome to the ugly side of bureaucracy: a sitting president can delay an industry or disfavored group long enough to crash their financial position and kill investment. Even though wind projects can continue, who would be crazy enough to build one now? Do they think the other federal roadblocks will be easier?

  • by Fons_de_spons ( 1311177 ) on Sunday December 14, 2025 @05:34AM (#65857155)
    Trump blocked wind energy projects? He really should find a hobby.
  • by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Sunday December 14, 2025 @07:49AM (#65857251)

    '"It's more symbolic than substantive," he said. "All the court is saying is ... you need to go back to work and consider these applications..."'

    No, the judge is saying a lot more. The executive order froze all existing permits, it did not merely halt consideration of new ones.

    • by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      "What does that really mean?" he said. Officials could still deny permits or bog applications down in lengthy reviews, he noted."

      Please don't act surprised. This is what Obama and Biden did with projects and permits they didn't like.

      New oil and mining permits were pretty much halted.

      • New oil and mining permits were pretty much halted.

        This is of course false. Obama cut the number of approved permits about in half. While this is a very steep reduction, you are overstating the case by approximately 100%. Meanwhile, Biden issued more permits than did Trump [biologicaldiversity.org].

        You are a liar. Please fuck off with your lies.

      • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        New oil and mining permits were pretty much halted.

        This is an often-repeated rumor but the numbers say otherwise. The claim's origin is that Biden made a policy of not granting any new oil drilling licenses on federal land. But that didn't really change anything since there are plenty of wells, and it is difficult to open new wells on undeveloped federal land since it involves building roads, seeking permits, etc. Offshore drilling is generally easier, and we have a glut of offshore drilling wells that are still full.

        The number of new licenses issued didn

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday December 14, 2025 @10:08AM (#65857407)
    And 94% of them are overturned in favor of Trump when they get to the Supreme court, usually on the shadow docket with absolutely no reason given.

    The system of checks and balances designed to protect you have failed. All of them.

    I don't care what your politics are, that is not going to end well for you. If you are old maybe you will die before the blowback hits you. If not, buckle up buttercup.
    • And 94% of them are overturned in favor of Trump when they get to the Supreme court, usually on the shadow docket with absolutely no reason given.
        The system of checks and balances designed to protect you have failed. All of them.
       

      The lower courts getting overturned by a higher court is part of that system of checks and balances. Many people think it's the lower courts that are failing.

      • And 94% of them are overturned in favor of Trump when they get to the Supreme court, usually on the shadow docket with absolutely no reason given. The system of checks and balances designed to protect you have failed. All of them.

        The lower courts getting overturned by a higher court is part of that system of checks and balances. Many people think it's the lower courts that are failing.

        Many of the lower court decisions seem pretty solid, reasonable and thought-out, but SCOTUS, especially Justices Alito and Thomas, is seemingly just making stuff up, or misinterpreting things from Medieval England, to support their agendas.

        Alito's Roe attack betrays a medieval ignorance of ancient history [nbcnews.com]
        Google: alito medieval england roe [google.com]

        Many of their rulings that specifically favored Trump seem like stretches, like the near-total immunity for the President and limiting the application of the insurre

        • And 94% of them are overturned in favor of Trump when they get to the Supreme court, usually on the shadow docket with absolutely no reason given.

          The system of checks and balances designed to protect you have failed. All of them.

          The lower courts getting overturned by a higher court is part of that system of checks and balances. Many people think it's the lower courts that are failing.

          Many of the lower court decisions seem pretty solid, reasonable and thought-out, but SCOTUS, especially Justices Alito and Thomas, is seemingly just making stuff up, or misinterpreting things from Medieval England, to support their agendas.

          And I think it's the other way around, the lower court rulings have often been completely baseless, which is why they are being stayed and overturned by higher courts often before it gets to the Supreme Court. As for the Supreme Court, to me Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson's opinions are embarrassingly bad even to Sotomayor and Kagan.

      • Are the kind of people who are upset that they can't use the n-word in public and who knowingly voted for Trump the rapist because they think it should be legal to fuck kids. So really I don't pay much mind to those people because they're weird little fuckers and best case scenario they will become irrelevant and worst case scenario we're all going to die in a global Firestorm of nuclear fire caused by those idiots handing the launch codes to religious lunatics because they're upset somebody said happy holi
        • What makes you think that there are people who want to, "use the n-word in public", but don't? I've never heard of such a person. I have heard people go ahead and do it, and they didn't seem like they felt constrained. They were a-holes who wanted everyone to know it, so that's what they did.

          Seriously, you keep building straw men in your mind, and it isn't doing you any good. Are you any happier because you've imagined even worse attributes to assign to people you disagree with? Is your daily life be

    • And 94% of them are overturned in favor of Trump when they get to the Supreme court, usually on the shadow docket with absolutely no reason given.

      This really isn't accurate. Yes, SCOTUS has stayed a lot of injunctions, but I think most of the rulings on the merits -- where they actually do have to give some plausible reasoning -- will go the other way. I think the Roberts court wants to give Trump his way on basically everything, and I think they'll employ a lot of very twisty logic to justify what they can, issuing a lot of bad ruling along the way, but most of his actions are so wrong that they'll ultimately have to shut them down.

    • Stop falling for the scam. Those lower courts issue rulings they know will not stand so that Democrat politicians have something to campaign on. It's all BS and they know it.
  • The Trump order blocked offshore wind projects. These projects can only be viable if they have high subsidies and guaranteed high rates for the energy produced. It's also very unpopular with state residents and environmentalists. This court ruling will not change the economics that have caused multiple companies to walk away from these projects before the Trump Administration, for example: https://us.orsted.com/news-arc... [orsted.com]

    This explains it in detail: https://www.cato.org/blog/unpa... [cato.org]

  • It's so weird that when I was a kid the Left had "Save the Whales!!" bumper stickers and now it's the Right-Conservationists.

    They even dedicated Star Trek IV to the cause.

    Maybe if the whale killers get reinstated we'll at least get case law to prohibit permitting denials for Integral Fast Reactors and that can at least clean up the Boomers' nuclear waste to protect the ecosystem long term.

  • That's gotta really torque Trump off. :-)

    "It's more symbolic than substantive," he said. "All the court is saying is ... you need to go back to work and consider these applications. What does that really mean?" he said. Officials could still deny permits or bog applications down in lengthy reviews, he noted.

    Sure, but companies only have to wait 3 more years ...

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!

Working...