BALTIMORE, Md. - A federal court fight in Massachusetts over offshore wind is now playing a role in the ongoing legal battle over the proposed US Wind project off Maryland's coast.
As WBOC has covered extensively, the Maryland lawsuit was filed in 2024 by the Town of Ocean City and other plaintiffs challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's approval of US Wind's Construction and Operations Plan off the coast of Worcester County under President Joe Biden.
On April 13, 2026, Ocean City and its fellow plaintiffs filed for a motion of summary judgment, requesting federal judge Stephanie Gallagher to essentially reverse BOEM’s approval of the project without bringing the case to trial. The federal government was given until June 26 to respond.
On Friday, June 12, attorneys for the U.S. Department of the Interior asked Gallagher for more time to respond to that motion, now citing a separate offshore wind case in Massachusetts. In that lawsuit, a federal judge in April temporarily blocked the Interior Department from relying on several agency actions related to wind and solar energy projects.
According to Friday's filing, one of those blocked actions is a legal opinion known as the "Zerzan M-Opinion," which federal officials had been using to reevaluate approvals for offshore wind projects.
Federal attorneys previously argued that BOEM, now under the Trump Administration, was reconsidering its approval of the project under the Zerzan M-Opinion and had concluded it may have incorrectly applied portions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act when approving the plan. However, in April, Chief U.S. District Judge Denise Casper of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction preventing federal agencies from implementing the Zerzan M-Opinion while litigation continues.
In Friday's filing, federal attorneys told the Maryland court that they need additional time to determine whether the Massachusetts ruling affects the government's ongoing review of the US Wind project and the legal arguments raised in the Maryland case. The filing states that allowing additional time could help determine "how, if at all," the Massachusetts decision affects reevaluation of the project and the claims currently before the federal court in Maryland.
Federal attorneys also noted that a motion seeking clarification of the Massachusetts injunction remains pending.
“The requested extension will provide efficiencies for the parties and the Court and will not significantly delay resolution of the case,” Friday’s filing in Maryland District Court reads. “Allowing Federal Defendants to review and determine the scope of the [Massachusetts] injunction as it relates to the Zerzan M-Opinion before it files its brief may obviate the need for future briefing on that issue.”
The Massachusetts case was brought by renewable energy organizations that argue the Trump Administration's actions unlawfully targeted wind and solar development. Judge Casper found the groups were likely to succeed on claims that several agency directives, including the Zerzan M-Opinion, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and temporarily blocked enforcement of those policies while the case proceeds.
The case in Maryland does not directly challenge those same agency directives, instead focusing solely on BOEM's prior approval of the US Wind project. Because federal officials relied on the Zerzan M-Opinion as part of their review of the project, however, the outcome of the Massachusetts litigation could influence how the federal government approaches the Maryland lawsuit moving forward.
Federal defendants have asked the U.S. District Court in Maryland to extend their filing deadline from June 26 to July 24. Neither the plaintiffs nor US Wind opposed the request, according to court records, with Judge Gallagher approving the extension on Friday.
