Fifteen Democratic states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the recent declaration of a so-called “energy emergency.” The lawsuit claims the administration's executive order improperly pushes federal agencies to expedite permits for fossil fuel projects at the expense of environmental reviews, all while asserting the country’s energy needs are unmet despite record production levels.
No Justification for 'Energy Emergency': States File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
No Justification for 'Energy Emergency': States File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
Fifteen states contest the Trump administration's claims on energy needs, alleging environmental law violations.
In a legal move filed in the Western District of Washington on May 9, the states argue that the administration's declaration—announced through an executive order on January 20—does not constitute a true emergency. The accusations highlight that President Trump’s directive is allowing agencies to overlook vital environmental regulations, such as those included in the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, which have usually only been bypassed in the wake of genuine disasters.
The lawsuit maintains that the president's executive order promotes legislation that typically applies during crises, rather than in cases of policy adjustment. With the complaint, attorneys general from Washington, California, and 13 other states are calling upon the court to deem the order illegal and curb the expedited issuance of permits that violate established laws.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown voiced strong criticism, suggesting that the president’s actions could bring significant harm without delivering promised benefits. Despite this, a Trump representative, Taylor Rogers, defended the administration's stance, asserting the president's rights to define what constitutes a national emergency. The lawsuit not only targets President Trump but also names several key figures in federal agencies.
In the face of mounting democratic pushback, this lawsuit stands as a pivotal challenge over environmental policy and regulatory authority, highlighting the ongoing tension between state and federal government roles in energy production and environmental protections.
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for The Climate desk and reports on disputes concerning climate and environmental policy.
The lawsuit maintains that the president's executive order promotes legislation that typically applies during crises, rather than in cases of policy adjustment. With the complaint, attorneys general from Washington, California, and 13 other states are calling upon the court to deem the order illegal and curb the expedited issuance of permits that violate established laws.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown voiced strong criticism, suggesting that the president’s actions could bring significant harm without delivering promised benefits. Despite this, a Trump representative, Taylor Rogers, defended the administration's stance, asserting the president's rights to define what constitutes a national emergency. The lawsuit not only targets President Trump but also names several key figures in federal agencies.
In the face of mounting democratic pushback, this lawsuit stands as a pivotal challenge over environmental policy and regulatory authority, highlighting the ongoing tension between state and federal government roles in energy production and environmental protections.
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for The Climate desk and reports on disputes concerning climate and environmental policy.
