Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
(Baltimore Division)
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
*
OF OCEAN CITY MARYLAND, et al.
*
Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
*
v.
*
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, et al.
* Civil Action No: 1:24-cv-03111-SAG
Defendants/Cross-Defendants
*
and
*
US WIND, INC.
*
Defendant-Intervenor/Cross-Plaintiff
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
Defendant-Intervenor and Cross-Plaintiff US Wind Inc. (“US Wind”) notifies the Court of
supplemental authority pertinent to its pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the pending
Motions to Dismiss US Wind’s counter and cross claims. ECF Nos. 83, 92, and 105. On
December 8, 2025, the U.S. District for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and
Order in State of New York, et al., v. Trump, et al. No. 25-cv-11221-PBS, 2025 WL 3514301,
attached hereto. In New York v. Trump, the Court evaluated the January 20, 2025 executive
memorandum titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf From
Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government's Leasing and Permitting Practices
for Wind Projects.” 90 Fed. Reg. 8363 (Jan. 20, 2025) (the “Wind Memo”) and the subsequent
actions by multiple agencies pursuant to that directive to pause the issuance of all wind energy
authorizations (the “Wind Order”). Among other rulings pertinent here, the Court found standing
requirements satisfied based in part on the fact that the Wind Order has stalled “development
Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG Document 124 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3
2
progress … for various of ACE NY’s wind developer members” and held that the Wind Order
constitutes final agency action because it “altered the legal status quo” under which the relevant
agencies previously processed applications for leases, permits, and other authorizations necessary
for wind project development” and because “[u]ntil full processing of applications related to wind
energy projects resumes, no such project can move forward.” Op. at 12, 21, 23. And the Court held
that the Wind Order was arbitrary and capricious, based in part on Agency Defendants’ “fail[ure]
to account for reliance interests engendered by their previous policy of adjudicating wind permit
applications,” and contrary to law, based on its violations of APA procedural requirements. Id. at
37-38, 39-42. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Wind Order and declared it unlawful in
violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and (C). Id. at 47.
Dated: December 9, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Toyja E. Kelley
Toyja E. Kelley, Sr. (D. Md. Bar No. 26949)
Emily Huggins Jones (pro hac vice)
Gregory L. Waterworth (D. Md. Bar No. 20938)
TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP
701 8th Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 220-6900
Facsimile: (202) 220-6945
toyja.kelley@troutman.com
emily.hugginsjones@troutman.com
greg.waterworth@troutman.com
Hilary Tompkins (pro hac vice)
Sean Marotta (pro hac vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 13th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5617
Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG Document 124 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3
3
hilary.tompkins@hoganlovells.com
sean.marotta@hoganlovells.com
David Newmann (pro hac vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1735 Market St., 23d Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 675-4600
david.newmann@hoganlovells.com
Attorneys
for
Defendant-Intervenor
and
Crossclaim Plaintiff US Wind, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on December 9, 2025, I filed and served the foregoing motion on counsel
of record through this Court’s CM/ECF system.
By: /s/ Toyja E. Kelley
Toyja E. Kelley, Sr. (D. Md. Bar No. 26949)
Case 1:24-cv-03111-SAG Document 124 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3