Letitia James and Six States Sue the Trump Administration Over the $795 Million Attentive Energy Offshore Wind Lease Cancellation

By Steve Levine · Updated June 18, 2026 · 12 min read

Published: June 18, 2026

New York Attorney General Letitia James and six other states have gone to federal court to undo a deal that would erase one of the largest offshore wind leases on the Atlantic coast. In a complaint filed on June 2, 2026, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont asked a judge in Washington, D.C. to throw out the cancellation of Attentive Energy's lease in the New York Bight and the settlement agreement that produced it. According to the states, the federal government dressed up a policy decision against offshore wind as a national-security matter, paid a developer back the full $795 million it had bid for the lease, and then watched that same money get steered into oil and gas. The federal government maintains the cancellation rests on legitimate, newly surfaced classified concerns. The court has not yet ruled on the merits.

Seven States Challenge an Offshore Wind Lease Cancellation

The case is captioned State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al. and was filed as Case No. 1:26-cv-01910 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs are the seven states, each appearing through its attorney general. The defendants include the Department of the Interior and its Secretary, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and its acting director, the Department of Justice and the acting Attorney General, all sued in their official capacities, along with Attentive Energy LLC, which is named as an interested party because it held the lease.

The states are not asking for money damages for themselves. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief: a ruling that the cancellation and the settlement broke the law, an order vacating both, and an injunction barring the government from carrying them out. In plain terms, they want the lease put back the way it was before March 2026.

What Was the Attentive Energy Offshore Wind Lease?

Lease OCS-A 0538 covered more than 84,000 acres in the New York Bight, the broad, shallow stretch of ocean between Long Island and the New Jersey shore. Attentive Energy, a subsidiary of the French energy company TotalEnergies, won the lease at a competitive BOEM auction in February 2022, bidding about $795 million. That auction, which offered six New York Bight leases, drew roughly $4.37 billion in winning bids and was described as the highest-grossing competitive offshore energy lease sale in U.S. history.

According to the complaint, the lease area was expected to support offshore wind projects with a combined potential nameplate capacity of more than 2.7 gigawatts, enough, the states say, to power over 1.3 million New York and New Jersey homes. Because the New York Bight sits close to New York City, electricity generated there was seen as well positioned to serve a region with growing demand.

Two projects were planned for the lease area

The lease was slated to host two projects, each occupying roughly half of the area:

• The Attentive Energy One Project was provisionally selected in a 2023 New York solicitation and was projected to interconnect into New York City with a nameplate capacity of about 1,404 megawatts, described as enough to serve roughly 700,000 New York homes.
• The Attentive Energy Two Project received a final award from New Jersey in early 2024 and was slated to deliver about 1,342 megawatts, described as enough to serve roughly 650,000 New Jersey homes.

The states stress that BOEM awarded the lease only after years of review and extensive coordination with the Department of War (formerly the Department of Defense) to assess and mitigate national-security and radar concerns. Some areas of the Bight were withdrawn from consideration during that process, and the agency built in conditions intended to address military and radar issues before any turbines were approved.

What Agreement Did the Federal Government Reach With TotalEnergies?

On March 23, 2026, more than four years after the lease was awarded, Interior announced an agreement with TotalEnergies to terminate the Attentive lease (and a separate TotalEnergies lease off North Carolina). Several weeks later, Interior published the terms of what it called a settlement agreement. The federal government agreed to reimburse Attentive up to $795 million, the amount it had paid for the lease, and TotalEnergies agreed to direct an equivalent amount toward qualifying conventional-energy investments, described in the agreement as oil, natural gas, shale gas, or LNG development. Interior also said that, in light of the asserted national-security concerns, TotalEnergies had pledged not to develop any new offshore wind projects in the United States.

The agreement allowed TotalEnergies to count qualifying spending made after a set date toward the $795 million. Once the company documented that spending, Interior would cancel the lease and request payment of $795 million from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent appropriation at the Treasury used to pay certain judgments and settlements. Interior formally canceled the lease by letter dated April 17, 2026, stating that the company had made the required expenditures and that it would, through the Justice Department, request the payment.

Why Are the States Suing?

At the heart of the complaint is the states' contention that the national-security rationale is a cover story. According to the states, the administration spent more than a year taking steps to stop offshore wind, including a first-day memorandum halting wind approvals and a series of project suspension orders, and federal courts repeatedly blocked or vacated those actions as arbitrary or unsupported by the classified material the government pointed to. The states allege the Attentive cancellation is the same effort in a different form: instead of suspending the project and risking another loss in court, the government and the developer, who the complaint says were not genuinely on opposite sides, structured a deal that cancels the lease and refunds the bid.

The complaint points to the way the deal was rolled out. Interior's initial press release framed it as redirecting capital from offshore wind toward natural gas, which the states argue signals a policy motive rather than a security one. The complaint also notes that TotalEnergies approached the government with the idea, quoting the company's chief executive as saying the initiative "came from us." These are allegations; the federal government has not conceded them, and the administration maintains the cancellation was driven by genuine, newly identified classified concerns.

How the states say they are harmed

The states argue they have real stakes in the outcome. According to the complaint, New York and New Jersey folded the lease area into long-term energy, grid-reliability, economic-development, and climate planning, and they say Interior never acknowledged those reliance interests when it canceled the lease. The states also contend that canceling this lease, and others like it, could sharply reduce the offshore wind capacity available in the New York Bight, because a related memorandum makes the canceled areas unavailable for future wind leasing.

The five New England states say they could be affected too, even though the lease is off New York and New Jersey. They share a regional grid, regularly import electricity from New York, and rely on a regional market for renewable energy credits. The complaint alleges that fewer New York wind projects would mean fewer New York renewable energy credits, tighter supply, and higher prices for New England ratepayers, along with possible strain during high-demand winter periods. Vermont, the furthest from the lease, joins on the same regional-market theory.

What Laws Do the States Say Were Violated?

The complaint brings five claims. Each rests on the idea that a federal agency must follow the procedures Congress set and must explain itself when it reverses course.

1. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

The APA lets courts set aside agency actions that are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, or taken without required procedures. The states allege the cancellation was arbitrary and capricious because Interior, in their telling, failed to give a reasoned explanation, failed to acknowledge the states' reliance on the planned projects, failed to weigh alternatives such as project-specific mitigation, and offered a justification the states call contrived. The APA is also the vehicle the states use to press their environmental, offshore-leasing, and Judgment Fund arguments, since a violation of those laws can make an action "not in accordance with law" under the APA.

2. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA generally requires agencies to study the environmental effects of, and alternatives to, major federal actions. The states allege that canceling the lease was a major federal action and that Interior conducted no environmental review of the cancellation and offered the public no chance to participate, skipping a step they say the law required.

3. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)

OCSLA governs leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf and sets specific rules for canceling a lease. According to the states, Interior did not hold the hearing the statute requires before cancellation, did not make the statutory findings that continued activity would probably cause serious harm that could not be reduced in a reasonable time, did not weigh the factors OCSLA lists (such as preventing economic waste and ensuring a fair return to the United States), and did not notify or coordinate with the affected states' governors as the law directs.

4. The Judgment Fund Act

The Judgment Fund can pay a settlement only in limited circumstances, including when the payment is not already provided for by another law and when the matter involves a genuine, imminent legal dispute referred to the Attorney General. The states allege both conditions are missing here. They argue OCSLA already specifies how a canceled lessee is compensated, so the Judgment Fund should not apply, and they contend there was no genuine adversity or imminent litigation because, in their account, both sides wanted the same outcome.

5. Action exceeding statutory authority (ultra vires)

Finally, the states argue the settlement is ultra vires, a legal term for acting beyond the power any statute grants. No law, they contend, lets the government use a settlement to cancel a wind lease for reasons unrelated to OCSLA, refund the full purchase price, and condition that refund on the developer redirecting the money into oil and gas.

How Could the Cancellation Affect New York and New Jersey?

The complaint describes the lease area as a meaningful piece of both states' energy plans. The New York portion was expected to connect into New York City and, according to the states, serve roughly 700,000 homes, while the New Jersey portion was projected to serve roughly 650,000 homes. The states point to rising electricity demand, aging fossil-fuel plants nearing retirement, and statutory clean-energy targets as reasons they were counting on this generation. They also argue that, with relatively few leases remaining in the Bight, losing one could make future solicitations less competitive and raise the price the states pay for offshore wind.

It is worth being precise about what these figures are. They are projections and planning estimates drawn from the states' filings, describing what the projects were expected to deliver, not guaranteed outcomes. The projects had cleared important milestones but were still moving through review when the lease was canceled, and the article does not assume they would necessarily have been built or completed.

Offshore Wind Lease Cancellation Case Timeline

Here is the sequence the complaint lays out, from the 2022 lease award through the June 2026 filing.

What Are the States Asking the Court to Do?

The prayer for relief asks the court to:

• Declare that the lease cancellation is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and taken without required procedures, and that the settlement agreement is contrary to law, in excess of statutory authority, and ultra vires.
• Vacate and set aside both the lease cancellation and the settlement agreement.
• Temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoin the federal defendants from implementing the cancellation and the settlement.
• Award further relief the court considers appropriate, including attorneys' fees and costs.

The Federal Government's Position

In fairness to the other side, the administration's stated view is that the cancellation was justified. According to the published agreement and Interior's public statements, the Department of War raised classified national-security concerns about the project that were not known to BOEM when the lease was issued and that, the government says, would have prevented the lease from being issued had they been considered. The administration also frames the broader policy as supporting reliable and affordable domestic energy. Those positions have not been tested in this case yet, and the federal defendants will have the opportunity to make their full argument as the litigation proceeds.

Has the Court Ruled Yet?

No. As of this writing, the complaint had been filed and the case was at its earliest stage. The court has not ruled on the merits, and it has not decided any request to block the cancellation while the case is pending. Everything the states describe is an allegation in a complaint. A complaint is one side's account; it is not a finding by any judge that the government broke the law.

What Happens Next?

From here, the federal defendants are expected to respond, typically by answering the complaint or moving to dismiss, and the case will be assigned to a judge who will manage the schedule. Because the states asked for injunctive relief, an early fight over whether to pause the cancellation while the case proceeds is possible, though the docket may also move at a more deliberate pace. Litigation like this can take many months, and appeals are common in high-stakes energy and administrative-law disputes.

This case does not stand alone. The complaint situates it within a series of legal challenges to the administration's offshore wind actions, several of which have already produced court orders blocking or vacating agency moves. How those related cases develop could shape the backdrop against which this one is decided. We will follow the docket and update this page if the procedural posture changes.

Related Coverage

For other lawsuits over federal agency action and recent multistate attorney general litigation we have tracked:

• Gavin Newsom's lawsuit against Trump, explained — a state challenge to a federal action over the California National Guard.
• Federal judge strikes down USCIS application hold policies — a court vacating federal agency policies under the APA.
• Florida sues OpenAI over ChatGPT — a state enforcement action, not a class action.
• More class action and legal news.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources

• Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01910, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (filed June 2, 2026).
• Office of the New York State Attorney General, public court-filing posting of the complaint.
• U.S. Department of the Interior, press releases on the TotalEnergies agreement (March 23, 2026) and related agreements (April 27, 2026), and the April 17, 2026 lease cancellation decision letter.
• Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.; National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.; Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706; Judgment Fund Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1304.
• Offices of the Attorneys General of Massachusetts and Connecticut, public announcements of the lawsuit.

About This Page

This article summarizes a public federal court complaint and related government materials in State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01910 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site and is not a law firm, a government agency, a party to this case, or counsel for anyone involved. The statements attributed to the states are allegations in a complaint and have not been proven; the federal defendants are entitled to respond. This page is general information, not legal or tax advice, and the status of the case may change after the date above. For the current status, consult the official court docket.