Blog
US Asks Court to Remand Maryland Offshore Wind Approval
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes · Last updated:
The Department of Justice has asked a U.S. District Court in Maryland to remand the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of the Construction and Operations Plan for Maryland Offshore Wind, putting a previously granted permit back under Interior Department review. The Maryland Offshore Wind lease, held by US Wind, traces to a 2014 auction and was combined into a single project in 2018; BOEM approved the COP on December 3, 2024. The plan calls for up to 114 turbines, four offshore substations, four export cables, a 100-meter meteorological tower and has been described as having potential for approximately 1.8 GW of capacity.
Key takeaways
- DOJ action: The Department of Justice filed to have a district court remand BOEM’s approval of the Maryland Offshore Wind COP for further Interior Department review.
- Project scale: The COP approved on December 3, 2024, envisages up to 114 wind turbines and roughly 1.8 GW of potential capacity.
- Technical details: In the plan, US Wind proposes four offshore electrical substations, four export cables to shore and a meteorological tower that would reach 100 metres in height.
- Legal exposure: Eight separate complaints seek to block the approval; the District Court has dismissed three counts while four counts remain pending.
- Related challenge: The administration used a similar remand request on the nearly completed Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island.
Table of contents
- Key takeaways
- Why the Department of Justice asked for a remand
- What the Maryland Offshore Wind plan contains
- The legal map: lawsuits, dismissals and prior rulings
- How a remand would affect developers and state challenges
- Cases for and against reopening approvals
- What to be careful about
- Frequently asked questions
Why the Department of Justice asked for a remand
Last week the Department of Justice filed a plea with a U.S. District Court in Maryland asking that BOEM’s prior approval of the Maryland Offshore Wind Construction and Operations Plan be returned to the Department of the Interior for further review. The filing argues BOEM’s sign-off requires re-examination under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and highlights concerns the agency identified about potential adverse impacts.
The DOJ filing quotes BOEM findings that the plan could affect the North Atlantic Right Whale, scenic and visual resources, some commercial fisheries and scientific research. The filing also disputes a plaintiff count against NOAA Fisheries, calling it "blatantly inaccurate" and urging the court to grant summary judgment on that count.
What the Maryland Offshore Wind plan contains
US Wind’s lease stems from a 2014 offshore auction; in 2018 the firm unified two separate leases under a single project and then commenced the approval process in 2020. BOEM’s approved COP, dated 3 December 2024, outlines a build scenario of up to 114 turbines and states the total lease area has the potential for approximately 1.8 GW of generation.
In its COP, US Wind describes plans for four offshore electrical substations, four export cables running to shore, and a 100-metre meteorological tower sited within the lease area offshore of Ocean City, Maryland. The company told regulators it was evaluating turbine models of up to 18 MW, although the COP did not name specific turbine manufacturers.
The legal map: lawsuits, dismissals and prior rulings
The Maryland Offshore Wind approval has been the subject of multiple lawsuits; the Department of the Interior and US Wind face eight complaints challenging the COP approval. The District Court has dismissed three counts — including a procedural claim, a migratory bird claim and a Coastal Zone Management Act count — while four counts remain pending.
Courts have previously pushed back on some administration actions: judges issued injunctions against stop-work orders and found an indefinite review of the permitting process violated the Administrative Procedure Act. That case history frames how readily a court may allow the administration to reopen a final approval.
How a remand would affect developers and state challenges
If the court grants the remand, BOEM would revisit its environmental and statutory findings, which could delay or change permit conditions for a project that has already passed lengthy reviews. Developers such as US Wind contend they spent years in review and permitting prior to receiving the December 3, 2024 approval and say reopening approvals would undermine those investments.
The remand request also sits alongside other legal and policy fights: states have sued the administration over its programme of buying back leases in exchange for offshore companies investing in fossil fuel projects, and the administration has used similar remand tactics against the nearly completed Revolution Wind off Rhode Island.
| Project | Location | BOEM approval date / status | Key figures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland Offshore Wind | offshore from Ocean City, Maryland | Approved by BOEM on December 3, 2024; remand requested by DOJ | Up to 114 turbines; ~1.8 GW potential; four substations; four export cables; 100 m met tower |
| Revolution Wind | off Rhode Island | Subject of a separate remand request by DOJ; installation completed and in commissioning | Nearly completed installation; commissioning stage (specific turbine count not specified) |
Cases for and against reopening approvals
The case for
- For remand: DOJ and Interior highlight BOEM’s own findings about possible major adverse impacts under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which provide a legal basis to revisit conclusions.
- For developers: prior court rulings that blocked stop-work orders and found indefinite reviews to violate the Administrative Procedure Act favour companies that argue approvals should stand.
The case against
- If remanded, BOEM may need to impose new mitigation or conditions addressing species such as the North Atlantic Right Whale, which could raise costs or alter project design.
- State lawsuits over lease buybacks and other policy moves add parallel legal exposure that could complicate any single court’s remedial orders.
What to be careful about
- A court-ordered remand could delay construction starts or commissioning timelines that developers planned after the December 3, 2024 approval.
- A remand that requires revised environmental findings could force additional mitigation measures tied to the North Atlantic Right Whale, scenic or commercial-fishery impacts.
- Companies that committed to procurement or financing on the basis of the 2024 approval face legal and commercial uncertainty if approvals are reopened.
The bottom line
The DOJ’s remand request puts a previously finalized federal approval back under scrutiny and underscores the broader legal contest between the current administration and offshore wind developers. Maryland Offshore Wind, whose lease dates to 2014 and whose COP was approved on December 3, 2024, now faces renewed procedural uncertainty alongside eight active complaints. How the district court responds will shape whether BOEM must reopen environmental and statutory findings and whether other projects that cleared permitting can be revisited in the same way.
What to watch
- Watch for the U.S. District Court in Maryland to rule on DOJ’s remand motion; no date has been set.
- Watch for any Interior Department action if the court orders a remand; no date has been set.
- Watch the status of the four remaining counts in the Maryland litigation for new hearings or rulings; no date has been set.
Frequently asked questions
What did DOJ ask the court to do in the Maryland case?
The Department of Justice asked a U.S. District Court in Maryland to remand BOEM’s December 3, 2024 approval of the Maryland Offshore Wind COP so the Department of the Interior can re-evaluate the agency’s compliance with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
How large is the Maryland Offshore Wind project as approved?
BOEM’s approved COP envisages up to 114 turbines, includes four offshore substations and four export cables, a 100-meter meteorological tower and identifies the lease area as having potential for approximately 1.8 GW of capacity.
How many legal challenges are there to the approval?
There are eight complaints seeking to block the approval; the District Court has dismissed three counts while four counts are still pending.
Related reading