Fifteen states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s Executive Order to expedite energy projects by declaring a “national energy emergency,” claiming the order illegally bypasses crucial environmental protections.
At a Glance
- A coalition of 15 states is suing over President Trump’s Executive Order fast-tracking energy projects
- The lawsuit claims the administration is illegally bypassing environmental protection laws
- Trump declared a “national energy emergency” on his first day in office to promote oil and gas expansion
- The Attorneys General argue no actual emergency exists as U.S. energy production is at an all-time high
- The states seek a federal judge to declare the Executive Order unlawful
The “National Energy Emergency” Order
The legal challenge stems from President Trump’s January 20 Executive Order declaring a “national energy emergency” on his first day in office. This directive promotes oil and gas expansion using federal eminent domain and the Defense Production Act—tools typically reserved for genuine emergencies like natural disasters or national security threats. The order instructs agencies to expedite energy-related projects by circumventing standard environmental review procedures that have been established over decades of legislative action.
Led by Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the lawsuit specifically names the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior as federal agencies now bypassing mandatory reviews required under established federal laws. These agencies are responsible for evaluating environmental impacts before approving major infrastructure projects under laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
— J Michael Waller (@JMichaelWaller) March 18, 2025
States’ Legal Arguments
The coalition of Attorneys General argues that there is no actual energy emergency to justify such extraordinary measures. They point out that domestic energy production is currently at historic highs, undermining the administration’s rationale for emergency powers. The lawsuit, filed in Washington state, contends that the Executive Order represents an overreach of presidential authority that threatens to damage critical environmental and cultural resources.
“The Executive Order is unlawful, and its commands that federal agencies disregard the law and in many cases their own regulations to fast-track extensive categories of activities will result in damage to waters, wetlands, critical habitat, historic and cultural resources, endangered species, and the people and wildlife that rely on these precious resources,” Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown and the other plaintiffs said.
The states involved in the lawsuit include Washington, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Their Attorneys General emphasize that while reliable and affordable electricity is important, it should not come at the expense of environmental protection or state sovereignty. The White House has yet to comment on the legal challenge.
States’ Rights and Environmental Concerns
A central argument in the lawsuit involves states’ rights under the Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. The Attorneys General contend that the Trump administration’s emergency processes effectively strip states of their authority to review and potentially reject projects that could harm their natural resources. This represents a significant shift in the federal-state balance of power regarding environmental protection.
“The shortcuts inherent in rushing through emergency processes fundamentally undermine the rights of States,” said the Attorneys General.
The coalition is asking a federal judge to declare the Executive Order unlawful and prevent federal agencies from using emergency permitting procedures for non-emergency projects. This lawsuit represents the latest in a series of legal challenges to the administration’s energy and environmental policies. The outcome will likely have significant implications for how federal agencies balance energy development with environmental protection requirements established by Congress.
