The Unfolding Legal Battles of Presidential Power in Regulating Energy on Public Lands

On the first day in office of President Trump’s second term, he issued a presidential memorandum ordering a temporary freeze on all federal permitting for onshore and offshore wind within the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This blocked any new lease sales for wind projects, pending a “comprehensive assessment.” Three months later, in May 2025, seventeen states and the District of Columbia sued the administration, filing a lawsuit in a Massachusetts federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the actions had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and other federal statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). 

Legal debates over the use of presidential authority to change energy development rules in the OCS are not new. The OCS has been subject to numerous politically charged legal battles as a consequence of the ambiguous language in Section 12(a) of the 72-year-old Outer Continental Shelf Land Act (OCSLA), which grants presidential authority to withdraw areas from energy lease sales. While presidential authority has long been contested in the context of the OCSLA, recent executive actions challenging renewables on both offshore and onshore land demonstrate an unprecedented test of presidential power to regulate America’s energy production landscape. The second Trump Administration has made it clear that it is not interested in developing rules that abide by the law but rather testing its luck in courts, consistent with President Trump’s display of attempts to expand presidential power. 

In 1953, due to a growing interest in offshore drilling and mineral exploration, Congress passed the aforementioned Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act under Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Act defines the OCS as all submerged lands lying seaward of state coastal waters (3 miles offshore) and gives the Department of the Interior (DOI) responsibility for regulating mineral exploration and authority to grant leases to energy infrastructure developers through bid auctions. The Act has been amended several times. Section 12(a) of OCSLA allows the president to indefinitely “withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf,” which would then prohibit DOI and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from granting leases to private energy companies. Eight different presidents have used authority under OCSLA to protect waters. The Act does not explicitly articulate the scope of presidential authority to reopen withdrawn lands.

In 2016, President Obama used the authority granted to him in OCSLA to permanently end oil and gas leasing in about 98% of the Arctic Ocean and key parts of the Atlantic Coast, much of which had already been protected by previous presidents through Section 12(a). 

In 2017, President Trump ordered the reversal of Obama’s withdrawals. Ten Alaskan and environmental groups immediately sued the administration in a federal district court in Alaska, arguing that OCSLA does not authorize reversals of a prior withdrawal and that President Trump violated constitutional separation of powers by bypassing Congressional approval. The Administration responded by asking the Alaskan district court to dismiss the lawsuit. The American Petroleum Institute (API) then joined the lawsuit as a defendant, backing the Trump Administration. In League of Conservation Voters v. Trump (2017), the administration and the API argued that the alleged injuries are speculative. As required by standing doctrine derived from Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution—intended to prevent courts from wading into abstract public policy—the coalition of environmental groups had to show a direct injury that is “fairly traceable” to Trump’s order. The groups argued that oil and gas development in Alaska would be detrimental to marine mammals and indigenous livelihood. Ruling in favor of the environmental groups, the court held that President Trump exceeded presidential authority granted by OCSLA when he issued an executive order (EO) revoking President Obama’s withdrawals.

When President Biden issued EO 13990 on January 20, 2021, using his authority pursuant to Section 12(a), to formally reinstate President Obama’s withdrawals and repeal President Trump’s order, appeals to LCV v. Trump were sent to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs argued Biden’s revocation of Trump’s EO rendered these appeals moot, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, declaring the court lacks “jurisdiction to consider ‘moot questions.” The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and ordered dismissal of challenges to LCV v. Trump, reaffirming Obama’s 2016 moratorium on oil and gas leasing in 128 million acres of ocean territory. Earthjustice wrote in 2021: “Today’s order recognizes that President Obama’s ban on oil and gas leasing in these vibrant and sensitive waters will be in effect without the need for continued litigation.” 

However, in 2025, Section 12(a) is being questioned once again. Before leaving office, President Biden cited his authority under OCSLA to issue a memorandum that withdrew additional areas from oil and gas leasing, blocking development on 625 million acres of federal waters. Attorney Generals in  Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, and Mississippi, in alliance with API and the Gulf Energy Alliance, challenged the order, as well as Obama’s OCS protections. These states are home to a number of oil and gas companies not pleased with the Biden. While President Trump issued EO 14148 repealing Biden’s memorandum and Obama’s actions to protect public waters on January 20, 2025—in addition to withdrawing all areas in the OCS from wind project lease sales—the Louisiana court proceeded with the case. In early October 2025, a federal judge in Louisiana, U.S. District Court Judge James Cain, ruled in favor of the Attorney Generals and industry groups after assessing Section 12(a) of OCSLA.

In a major win for the Trump administration and the oil and gas sector, Judge Cain’s ruling could have implications for all OCSLA-protected land designated under Biden and Obama. Cain argues that both Obama and Biden abused their presidential authority in trying to make their land withdrawals permanent, writing that OCSLA “establishes that withdrawals must be subject to reversal or modification” and that Biden and Obama's orders represented a “departure from the executive branch’s longstanding practice and exceeded the authority granted.” The ruling dissected language in the orders, including Biden’s term “without specific expiration.” According to Cain, no president before Obama sought to make OCS protections permanent. The ruling can provide useful legal grounds for Trump’s energy agenda, including DOI’s announcement in August 2025 to hold 30 auctions for oil drilling rights in federal water over the next 15 years, replacing Biden’s plan to hold only three offshore oil lease sales over the next five years.

Perhaps the ruling could also mean that alleged OCSLA violations of President Trump’s “temporary” moratorium on wind projects in the OCS—despite not seeming to end anytime soon—could hold up in court. 

While some believed the Trump Administration would limit its attack to offshore wind projects, the administration has released a succession of policies attacking onshore renewable projects. The offshore wind memorandum became one of many executive actions targeting clean energy development on public lands, portending a bleak future for developers hoping to use federal lands—a vast potential resource for solar infrastructure. Moreover, the lawsuit challenging the offshore wind moratorium is becoming one of many in response to the administration’s energy actions.

DOI, the agency charged with federal land leases and management, recently promised to expand oil and drilling on public lands and weaken federal support for wind and solar, or “unreliable energy sources,” under Trump appointee Doug Burgum. Secretary Burgum, a proponent of the oil and gas industry, made it clear that DOI would deliver on the president’s energy agenda and “energy dominance” plans.

On July 29, 2025, the DOI released a series of secretarial orders threatening wind and solar development on public lands. The orders include SO 3437, Ending Preferential Treatment for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources in Department Decision Making, requiring the DOI and BLM to identify where solar and wind energy have been given “preferential treatment,” increase opportunities for opposition to offshore wind development, and commission studies on the impact of turbines on migratory birds. The DOI also announced its withdrawal of several onshore areas with high potential for wind energy development to ensure compliance with legal requirements for multiple use and sustained yield of public lands, and terminate previously designated pre-approved offshore Wind Energy Areas. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) subsequently formally rescinded all designated Wind Energy Areas on the OCS. Also on July 29, DOI announced it would direct its lawyers to review already approved wind projects that are currently facing lawsuits from opponents to identify where rescinding permits would be “appropriate.”

DOI issued Secretarial Order 3438 on August 1, 2025—Managing Federal Energy Resources and Protecting the Environment. The order blocks the DOI from issuing permits for any solar or wind project on federal land, pursuant to Trump’s EO directing the agency to consider “appropriate land use” and “capacity density” (Megawatts (MW) produced per acre). Unless the Department assesses that a proposed utility-scale renewable facility will generate as much energy per acre as a coal, natural gas, or nuclear plant, the project will not gain approval. Secretary Burgum voiced the changes level “the playing field in permitting support. Heatmap News comments that the limitations create a “seemingly impossible new permitting criteria for renewable energy.” 

All of these actions will be challenged in the courts, but the administration knows that. Unlike the clean energy tax credit rollbacks included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1), DOI secretarial orders and the president’s EOs are not approved by Congress, presenting opportunities for renewables proponents to dispute orders in court and, likewise, opportunities for the administration and industry allies to cement pathways for oil and gas priorities into law using the courts. Judge Cain, who decided the Louisiana case, is a Trump-appointed judge with an extensive history of ruling against Biden’s energy plans.

DOI’s SO 3438 questions “whether the use of Federal lands for any wind and solar projects is consistent with the law,” due to “disproportionate land use.” The administration arguably wants its orders to end up in courts, where Republicans’ strategic judicial reshuffling campaign could come in use and thus permanently reshape the laws dictating public lands. In doing so, judges will also be deciding on the scope of presidential authority, and thus inadvertently indicate their level of loyalty to President Trump.

Annabel Williams is a senior at Brown University studying International and Public Affairs. She is a Blog Writer and an Illustrator for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review, and can be reached at annabel_williams@brown.edu.

Michaela Hanson is a sophomore at Brown University studying English and Economics. She is an Associate Editor for the Brown University Law Review blog, and can be reached at @michaela_hanson@brown.edu. 
Wesley Horn is a sophomore at Brown University studying History and Economics. He is an Associate Editor for the Brown University Law Review blog, and can be reached at wesley_horn@brown.edu.