You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
States filed yet another motion on Monday asking the court to release urgently needed disaster relief.

In case you missed it: The Federal Emergency Management Agency has continued to withhold millions of dollars from states for disaster recovery, relief, and preparedness despite a district court’s order from March 6 calling on the administration to release the funds.
Among the more than 200 FEMA grants to states that remain frozen are a case management program for survivors of the 2023 Maui wildfires, emergency readiness projects in Oregon, and flood hazard mitigation in Colorado, according to a motion filed on Monday in the lawsuit State of New York v. Trump.
The motion was filed the day after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said her department would move to “eliminate” FEMA during a cabinet meeting.
Twenty-two states plus the District of Columbia filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island in late January, after President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget issued a directive to federal agency heads to conduct a review of funding related to “foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” and to pause disbursement of any related funds in the meantime. The states argued that the memo and the executive orders it cites were unconstitutional.
The states sought an injunction on the pause, which Chief Judge John McConnell Jr., a Biden appointee, granted in early March. “The Executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government,” he wrote in the ruling. “Here, the Executive put itself above Congress. It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending.”
The Trump administration filed notice with the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that it is appealing the injunction a few days after it was issued.
Prior to the injunction order, the states had identified the disruptions from the pause on FEMA funds as being “particularly acute and widespread.” So as part of the injunction, the Judge directed FEMA to file a status report by March 14 detailing its compliance. But rather than detailing the release of grants previously held hostage, the status report federal lawyers filed on March 14 argued that the agency had “inherent authority” to conduct a “manual review” of the grants, and therefore it is not violating the court’s injunction by continuing to review — and therefore withhold — previously obligated funds.
“This manual review process is not a ‘pause’ or ‘freeze’ on funding,” the status report says, “nor does it mean that the grant is being frozen, held, or not being distributed.”
On Monday, states filed a motion calling BS on this argument and requesting that the court use its authority to enforce the injunction. This was urgent, they argued, because as the end of the first quarter nears, the lack of access to funding is going to start disrupting crucial programs.
If Hawaii doesn’t start receiving reimbursements for its federally-funded case management program by March 31, for example, it will be forced to immediately discontinue its work helping more than 4,000 wildfire survivors create tailored disaster recovery plans and navigate recovery resources. The state used to have to wait approximately a week for FEMA to review reimbursement requests and transfer the funds. Now it’s been waiting nearly 30 days. “This abrupt change in practice is near fatal because a key requirement of FEMA regarding these grant funds is that Hawaiʻi is precluded from maintaining more than three business days’ worth of cash on hand,” the states’ filing says.
FEMA is still issuing funds for some activities. The agency approved Fire Management Assistance Grants for North and South Carolina this week, where several major wildfires have been burning for weeks.
While the Trump administration fights the injunction in court, its supporters in Congress are fighting it on the floor. House Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia introduced articles of impeachment against Judge McConnell on Tuesday, the latest in a series of such moves to impeach federal judges that have ruled against Trump’s actions. This is despite a warning from the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice, John Roberts, last week in a rare public statement, that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A third judge rejected a stop work order, allowing the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project to proceed.
Offshore wind developers are now three for three in legal battles against Trump’s stop work orders now that Dominion Energy has defeated the administration in federal court.
District Judge Jamar Walker issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking the stop work order on Dominion’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project after the energy company argued it was issued arbitrarily and without proper basis. Dominion received amicus briefs supporting its case from unlikely allies, including from representatives of PJM Interconnection and David Belote, a former top Pentagon official who oversaw a military clearinghouse for offshore wind approval. This comes after Trump’s Department of Justice lost similar cases challenging the stop work orders against Orsted’s Revolution Wind off the coast of New England and Equinor’s Empire Wind off New York’s shoreline.
As for what comes next in the offshore wind legal saga, I see three potential flashpoints:
It’s important to remember the stakes of these cases. Orsted and Equinor have both said that even a week or two more of delays on one of these projects could jeopardize their projects and lead to cancellation due to narrow timelines for specialized ships, and Dominion stated in the challenge to its stop work order that halting construction may cost the company billions.
The decision marks the Trump administration’s second offshore wind defeat this week.
A federal court has lifted Trump’s stop work order on the Empire Wind offshore wind project, the second defeat in court this week for the president as he struggles to stall turbines off the East Coast.
In a brief order read in court Thursday morning, District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — sided with Equinor, the Norwegian energy developer building Empire Wind off the coast of New York, granting its request to lift a stop work order issued by the Interior Department just before Christmas.
Interior had cited classified national security concerns to justify a work stoppage. Now, for the second time this week, a court has ruled the risks alleged by the Trump administration are insufficient to halt an already-permitted project midway through construction.
Anti-offshore wind activists are imploring the Trump administration to appeal this week’s injunctions on the stop work orders. “We are urging Secretary Burgum and the Department of Interior to immediately appeal this week’s adverse federal district court rulings and seek an order halting all work pending appellate review,” Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey, said in a statement texted to me after the ruling came down.
Any additional delays may be fatal for some of the offshore wind projects affected by Trump’s stop work orders, irrespective of the rulings in an appeal. Both Equinor and Orsted, developer of the Revolution Wind project, argued for their preliminary injunctions because even days of delay would potentially jeopardize access to vessels necessary for construction. Equinor even told the court that if the stop work order wasn’t lifted by Friday — that is, January 16 — it would cancel Empire Wind. Though Equinor won today, it is nowhere near out of the woods.
More court action is coming: Dominion will present arguments on Friday in federal court against the stop work order halting construction of its Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
A federal court has once again allowed Orsted to resume construction on its offshore wind project.
A federal court struck down the Trump administration’s three-month stop work order on Orsted’s Revolution offshore wind farm, once again allowing construction to resume (for the second time).
Explaining his ruling from the bench Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said that project developer Orsted — and the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which filed their own suit in support of the company — were “likely” to win on the merits of their lawsuit that the stop work order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Lamberth said that the Trump administration’s stop work order, issued just before Christmas, amounted to a change in administration position without adequate justification. The justice said he was not sure the emergency being described by the government exists, and that the “stated national security reason may have been pretextual.”
This case was life or death for Revolution Wind. If the stop work order had not been enjoined, Orsted told the court it may not have been able to secure proper vessels for at-sea construction for long enough to complete the project on schedule. This would have a domino effect, threatening Orsted’s ability to meet deadlines in signed power agreements with Rhode Island and Connecticut and therefore threatening wholesale cancellation of the project.
Undergirding this ruling was a quandary Orsted pointed out to the justice: The government issued the stop work order claiming it was intended to mitigate national security concerns but refused to share specifics of the basis for the stop work order with the developer. At the Monday hearing on the injunction in Washington, D.C., Revolution Wind’s legal team pointed to a key quote in a filing submitted by the Justice Department from Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacob Tyner, saying that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal offshore energy regulator, was “not aware” of whether the national security risks could ever be mitigated, “and, if they can, whether the developers would find the proposed mitigation measures acceptable.”
This was the first positive outcome in what are multiple legal battles against the Christmas stop work orders against offshore wind projects. As I reported last week, two other developers filed individual suits alongside Orsted against their respective pauses: Dominion Energy in support of the Coastal Virginia offshore project, and Equinor over Empire Wind.
I expect what happened in the Revolution Wind case to be the beginning of a trend, as a cursory examination of the filings in those cases indicate similar contradictions to those that led to Revolution winning out. We’ll find out soon: The hearing on Empire’s stop work order is scheduled for Wednesday and Coastal Virginia on Friday.