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

"In one of those cases, a judge lifted the hold on construction, ruling that a lack of a sound justification for the hold made it "the height of arbitrary and capricious," a legal standard that determines whether federal decision-making is acceptable under the Administrative Procedures Act. If this were a fictional story, that would be considered foreshadowing. With no indication of how long the comprehensive assessment would take, 17 states sued to lift the hold on permitting."

"The first issue Judge Saris addressed is standing: Are the states suffering appreciable harm from the suspension of wind projects? She noted that they would receive tax revenue from the projects, that their citizens should see reduced energy costs following their completion, and that the projects were intended to contribute to their climate goals, thus limiting harm to their citizens. At one point, Saris even referred to the government's attempts to claim the parties lacked standing as "tilting at windmills.""

"The government also argued that the suspension wasn't a final decision-that would come after the review-and thus didn't fall under the Administrative Procedures Act. But Saris ruled that the decision to suspend all activity pending the rule was the end of a decision-making process and was not being reconsidered by the government, so it qualified. Because Trump told us to"

A judge lifted a construction hold, finding the lack of a sound justification made the hold arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. Seventeen states sued to lift the permitting suspension, joined by the Alliance for Clean Energy New York; both sides sought summary judgment. Judge Saris addressed standing, noting states would gain tax revenue, reduced energy costs, and progress toward climate goals, and she mocked the government's standing argument as "tilting at windmills." The government argued the suspension was not a final decision, but Saris ruled the suspension constituted a final, nonreconsidered decision and therefore qualified under the APA.

Read at Ars Technica