Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge to Wind Energy Project off Massachusetts Coast
The court's decision came without comment in an unsigned
The project, known as Vineyard Wind 1, is located 15 miles off the coast of Nantucket Island.
The case goes back to 2021, when the Biden administration approved dozens of wind energy generation projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts 'in a rush to replace fossil fuels as this nation's primary source of electricity,' according to the
The shelf refers to all submerged land and seabed that belongs to the United States and is outside the jurisdiction or authority of individual U.S. states.
The departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Defense jointly issued the environmental impact statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which led to approval of Vineyard Wind 1. This was 'the first of many such large-scale, industrial offshore wind energy projects slated for the OCS,' the petition said.
Related Stories
9/25/2024
3/19/2024
The petitioners challenged the project, saying it was not allowed under the NEPA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).
'The record showed the project would result in momentous adverse impacts on marine navigation, public safety, the environment, and national security,' the petition said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed the project to move forward.
The petitioners, who are represented by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, said in the petition that this decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's landmark 2024
The First Circuit did not follow established precedents and 'impermissibly deferred' to the federal government's interpretations of the NEPA and OCSLA, which created a conflict between its ruling and previous Supreme Court decisions, the petition said.
The circuit court has 'unlawfully sanctioned the federal government's approval of the first of many such planned, enormous wind energy projects scheduled to industrialize the pristine waters of America's outer Continental Shelf … a decision that has grave adverse consequences for marine safety, the environment, and national security,' the petition said.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Can Ketanji Brown Jackson save the Supreme Court from itself?
The supremely partisan Supreme Court is deeply divided. The justices pretend that their divisions are intellectual, not personal, but we know that their deep ideological divisions can often disguise personal animus. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson appointed Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court, making him the first Jewish justice. Brandeis had no prior judicial experience but was known as the 'people's lawyer' for his championing of individual liberties — a right to privacy, free speech and social justice. The Economist once called him 'a Robin Hood of the law.' Leading lawyers and elected officials opposed the Brandeis nomination. The American Bar Association and such luminaries as former President William Howard Taft, Elihu Root and Henry Cabot Lodge lined up against him. Brandeis ascended to the conservative Supreme Court after a four-month Senate confirmation hearing — the first time such a hearing was held. After he took the bench, his colleague, Justice James McReynolds of Tennessee, a hardened antisemite, would turn his back and refuse to speak with Brandeis as he entered the conference room. Brandeis needed time to find his place. 'So extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis said it took him four or five years to feel that he understood the jurisprudential problems of the court,' Justice Felix Frankfurter later wrote of him. Brandeis often crafted trenchant dissenting opinions, some of which later became the basis for landmark judgments of the court's majority. In many of his famous dissents, he was joined by the iconic Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. His opinions were some of the greatest legal defenses of free speech and the right to privacy ever written. Unlike Brandeis, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by Biden in 2022, has not waited 'four or five years' to become 'a Robin Hood of the law.' But the parallels with Brandeis are striking. Jackson is the first Black woman to serve on the court and, like Brandeis, she has become the great dissenter, sometimes siding with Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan and sometimes standing alone. Jackson has erupted volcanically, writing eloquently to speak her heart and mind in advocacy for human rights or against the steady accretion of executive power. And she has not been shy about accusing her right-wing colleagues of enabling President Trump as he slip-slides the country towards a dangerous autocracy. Also, like Brandeis, she has been the target of personal attacks coming from conservatives on and off the bench. On the Supreme Court's 'shadow docket,' where Trump this term won 19 of the 21 cases the court considered, Jackson dissented. In strong language, she criticized the majority opinion in the birthright citizenship case, which sharply limited the power of district court judges to block presidential orders nationwide, even if they are flagrantly unconstitutional. She called it 'an existential threat to the rule of law' that created 'a zone of lawlessness within which the executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes.' Her slashing critiques have provoked her colleagues' rancor, culminating in gratuitous rebuke from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which did not lack dismissiveness or condescension. Barrett scolded Jackson as though she were an eight-year-old schoolgirl in a classroom for abandoning her 'oath to follow the law.' 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition,' she chided. ''Everyone from the president on down is bound by law.' That goes for judges too.' Justice Barrett added: 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' And: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.' In the staid world of the federal judiciary, it doesn't get any closer or more personal than this. Trump's supporters were delighted by Barrett's criticism of Jackson. 'Sometimes feeling the heat helps people see the light,' Mike Davis, a right-wing legal activist allied with the Trump administration, told NBC News. Duke law professor Marin K. Levy said Jackson 'is trying to raise the alarm. Whether she is writing for the public or a future court, she is making a larger point about what she sees as not just the errors of the majority's position but the dangers of it as well.' Perhaps one day Jackson's views, like those of Brandeis, will become the law. Jackson has also been critical of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket — an increasingly expedient procedural device for the justices to deliver bargain-basement endorsements of Trump's agenda without explanation or legal rhyme or reason. 'This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided,' Jackson wrote. 'It is also dangerous.' Last week, the court handed down a significant (if temporary) decision allowing Trump to move forward with firing thousands of federal workers. Jackson registered a solo dissent, writing, 'In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.' What Jackson criticizes has consequences in the real world. The court's repeated interventions in favor of Trump enable obvious illegality by the executive branch for a while, or possibly forever, as Trump continues to game the system. That it is only temporary is no answer. Over one million individuals may be losing their previous immigration status; countless migrants are being removed to third countries; federal employees are being fired wholesale, without congressional approval; statutorily created agencies are being downsized into insignificance; grants for scientific research have been throttled. And just wait for what will happen to law firms and universities. Jackson may not be 'so extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis,' but she is surely as principled. And like Brandeis, she is reviled on the right as Cassius was reviled by Julius Caesar: 'He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.' Conversations with Jim Zirin.
Newsweek
6 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Donald Trump's Plan to Arm Ukraine Differs From Joe Biden's
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's push for European NATO members to purchase U.S.-made weapons for Ukraine marks a shift from the more direct military support for Kyiv of his predecessor, Joe Biden. But unlike Biden, Trump has been more direct in engaging with Moscow, and both have taken their own approaches to economic measures to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin. Why It Matters The United States is the world's biggest provider of military support for Ukraine, but when Trump took office, there were fears that the Republican president would cut or curb this lifeline. Trump's move in the first half of 2025 to reset economic ties with Moscow also raised concerns about whether Biden-era sanctions aimed at choking revenues for Putin's war machine would be eased. The president's tone has shifted both towards Putin and regarding the continuation of U.S. military support for Ukraine, raising hope in Kyiv that the U.S. commitment to Ukraine may be as significant, albeit delivered differently, as Biden's. Then-President Joe Biden (L) and Donald Trump arrive at Trump's presidential inauguration ceremony on January 20, 2025. Then-President Joe Biden (L) and Donald Trump arrive at Trump's presidential inauguration ceremony on January 20, To Know Putin invaded Ukraine just over 13 months into Biden's White House term. Between February 24, 2022, and January 20, 2025, the U.S. became the world's biggest supplier of weapons and aid for Ukraine's fight, pledging over $175 billion in support. The Democratic president also signed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 and led the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a coalition of about 50 countries coordinating military assistance. "President Biden was able to organize a broad coalition of Western countries that helped transform the Ukrainian military into a formidable force, capable of resisting a much larger and better-funded Russian army supported by Iran and North Korea," Yuriy Boyechko, the CEO of Hope for Ukraine, told Newsweek. But his approach to arming Ukraine was criticized as piecemeal, as the Biden administration took pains to avoid escalation, opposing Kyiv's use of American equipment against military targets within Russia. Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden on the sidelines of the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 25, 2024. Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden on the sidelines of the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 25, 2024. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images By July 2022, the U.S. had supplied HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), and on July 6, 2023, Biden approved cluster munitions to Ukraine. However, deliveries of long-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles were delayed and eventually allowed, provided they would never be used to hit targets within Russia. Ukraine had been requesting U.S.-made F-16 fighters since 2022, but only started receiving them in July 2024 through third countries. Other weapons systems that were blocked or held up included Patriot surface-to-air missiles, M1 Abrams tanks, and Gray Eagle drones—delays which Kyiv said have added to battlefield losses among its forces. Sanctions Not Talks Rather than focusing on direct talks with Moscow, Biden's actions towards Putin centered on sanctions. As a parting shot, his administration imposed another round of measures, bringing the total to over 3,500, according to Statista, which are still in place today. "The Biden administration's approach did not really include direct negotiations with the Russians," George Beebe, former director of the CIA's Russia analysis and director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Newsweek. "They approached this by saying 'we're going to put enough economic and military pressure on Russia and isolate Russia internationally and diplomatically turn Russia into a persona non grata,'" Beebe said. The aim was to force the Russians to recalculate the costs and benefits of the invasion and capitulate, he said, "and that didn't work." Trump's Approach NATO chief Mark Rutte and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have welcomed Trump's proposal for the U.S. to provide new weapons to Ukraine. The NATO-coordinated arms plan for Kyiv was unveiled as a novel approach to the direct aid from Biden, which is touted as ensuring the continued flow of American arms to Ukraine, paid for by Europe. Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. had spent $350 billion on helping Ukraine, although the actual amount was significantly less. But a deal in which NATO and European Union states purchase U.S.-made weapons systems, deliver some to Ukraine, and replace them through agreements with Washington could satisfy Trump's MAGA base, who do not want to see American taxpayers footing the bill. "Clearly a situation where the Europeans are paying for this is a better deal for the United States than providing aid directly to Ukraine that probably will never be paid back," said Beebe, "that certainly was one of the considerations that President Trump bore in mind." Rutte said the deal included missiles, ammunition, and air defense, while Trump announced that Patriot missiles—critical to defend against Russia's drone and missile bombardment on civilian structures—were "already being shipped," to Ukraine. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on February 28, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on February 28, Tariffs The prospect of weapons shipments follows Trump's issuing an ultimatum to Moscow of "severe" tariffs unless Russia agrees to a peace deal within 50 days to end its war in Ukraine. He has since teased a shorter time frame. These would be, according to Trump, 100 percent secondary tariffs, in which any country doing business with Russia would face a significant levy on selling their products to the U.S. Demanding Russian action within a deadline is a tactic that differs from Biden's approach, although there are questions about its effectiveness. Beebe said the Biden administration likely considered such a move but concluded it would rebound against the U.S. in terms of inflation and the prospect of higher global oil prices. However, Russia realizes that imposing these tariffs on Europe, as well as its major trading partners, Turkey and China, "would go very poorly for the United States," he added, with potential impacts on inflation and global oil prices. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump on July 14 at the White House: "We're gonna be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days." U.S.-based Nova Ukraine said in a statement to Newsweek regarding the 50-day deadline and delivery of U.S weapons: "We have long advocated for decisive U.S. leadership to help Ukraine defend itself and deter further Russian aggression." Brian Taylor, a political science professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, told Newsweek: "The good news for Ukraine is has finally figured out that Putin is the main obstacle to peace." George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Newsweek: "We have to focus on a geopolitical compromise that the West concedes that Ukraine won't be in NATO and NATO forces won't be in Ukraine, and Russia, in turn, concedes that it will not block Ukrainian accession to the European Union. So far, neither Biden nor Trump has focused on pursuing that compromise." What Happens Next Boycheko, whose group provides support to Ukrainian communities on the frontline, said Trump's approach to aiding Ukraine is so far mostly just promises and statements. If Trump follows through on promises like secondary sanctions and the deployment of the most advanced military capabilities to Ukraine, "then we will be able to compare what was done by the current administration vs the previous administration," he said. Meanwhile, Taylor said that by deferring these proposed sanctions for 50 days, "Trump left himself plenty of time to change his mind again, while Putin keeps bombing Ukrainian cities nightly and his army remains on the offensive."
Fox News
6 minutes ago
- Fox News
Former Biden adviser admits failure to address border crisis reality led to Trump's re-election
Former Biden border adviser Blas Nuñez-Neto wrote in the New York Times on Tuesday that the administration's failure to address and act on the border crisis contributed to President Donald Trump's re-election. "The first step in responding to a crisis is to acknowledge it exists," Nuñez-Neto wrote. "The surge in illegal crossings at our southern border during the first three years of Joe Biden's presidency was, by any reasonable definition, a crisis. The failure to acknowledge this reality and take timely action to try to resolve it cost Democrats a great deal of trust with American voters and contributed to President Trump's return to the White House." Nuñez-Neto was the assistant secretary for border and immigration policy at the Department of Homeland Security under former President Joe Biden. He described experiencing "a tidal wave" of illegal entries at the border in 2021. The Biden aide said economic devastation from the Coronavirus pandemic was a factor but also acknowledged "a lack of resources" at the border and "the inability to deport people to countries like Venezuela" as issues that contributed to the numbers. "Deliberations that delayed important policy choices didn't help, either," he wrote. Nuñez-Neto added, "By the time Mr. Biden and congressional Democrats began working in earnest with Republicans in late 2023 and 2024 on revamping our immigration laws, the politics were hopelessly interwoven with the presidential election, which is why a tough, bipartisan bill ultimately foundered." Though he conceded that the border was more secure now than under Biden, Nuñez-Neto warned that this was done at the cost of "eroding our constitutional order." Instead, he argued, Congress needed to step in and provide a system that can be both generous to legal applicants and strict with people living in the United States illegally. "In other words, we need a system that recognizes that we are not only a nation of immigrants but also a nation of laws and that we need to respect both. Until that happens, the next border crisis will always be just around the corner," he concluded. Despite Nuñez-Neto's criticism of the Biden administration's border policies, his op-ed drew intense backlash online. Nuñez-Neto's former department, Homeland Security, took to X to mock him. "'I was Humpty Dumpty. Here's how to sit on a wall,'" the Homeland Security page wrote. Illegal border crossings reached record highs under Biden, with 249,785 Border Patrol apprehensions being recorded in December 2023. Under Trump, border encounters dropped by over 90% within his first few months in office.
