This amicus brief, filed on behalf of energy law scholars in Washington v. Trump before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, argues that the Trump administration’s January 2025 “energy emergency” declaration is pretextual rather than a genuine response to an energy shortage. The brief contends that, despite the declaration’s stated concern about inadequate energy supply and high prices, the administration’s actions—blocking wind and solar projects while forcing costly, inefficient power plants to keep running—have reduced energy supply and raised consumer energy bills, and that the declaration selectively excludes solar and wind from its definition of “energy” while including oil, gas, and coal. It further argues that this is part of a broader pattern of using emergency declarations to bypass Congress and the states and to unilaterally set national energy policy. The brief urges the court to apply “arbitrary and capricious” review under administrative law, arguing that courts are not required to accept the administration’s stated justification for an emergency when the evidence suggests a different, pretextual motive.
This resource was commissioned by or produced by staff of the Center for Applied Environmental Law and Policy before the organization rebranded as Ridgeline Center for Law and Policy in 2026.