TRENTON, N.J. – New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport is heading back to court in defense of offshore wind, joining seven other state attorneys general in challenging Trump administration agreements that would cancel two major leases off the Northeast coast.
The lawsuits target settlements involving Invenergy and Bluepoint Wind, which acquired federal leases in the New York Bight during the Biden administration. Davenport’s office says the Trump administration is improperly using more than $1.4 billion from the federal Judgment Fund to compensate developers for abandoning offshore wind and redirecting investments toward conventional energy projects.
What is disputed is whether the administration can legally do it this way.
Davenport and the other attorneys general allege that the settlements violate the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Judgment Fund Act. They want a federal court to invalidate the agreements and restore the leases.
The AG is also framing the fight as an affordability issue, arguing that New Jersey needs additional generating capacity and that offshore wind would help satisfy growing electricity demand.
That assertion, however, is a policy argument rather than a finding of the court. The litigation will determine the legality of the federal lease cancellations, not whether offshore wind represents the most economical way to supply New Jersey ratepayers with additional electricity.
The lawsuit is the latest chapter in a widening legal war between Trenton and Washington, and it’s largely one-sided.
In June, Davenport joined another multistate lawsuit challenging the cancellation of an offshore wind lease held by Attentive Energy. The newest complaints continue the Sherrill administration’s effort to preserve offshore wind development as the Trump administration attempts to unwind portions of the previous federal energy strategy.
And offshore wind represents only one front in Davenport’s increasingly litigation-heavy relationship with Washington.
Since taking office, Davenport has repeatedly joined Democratic-led multistate coalitions suing the Trump administration over federal policy. Her office has challenged Trump policies involving tariffs, election administration, USDA funding conditions, federal contracting and DEI requirements, Medicaid work requirements, ACA regulations, environmental regulations, federal access to state-held driver information and immigration-related conditions attached to law-enforcement grants, among other issues.
The volume has become substantial enough that the Attorney General’s own website maintains a dedicated “Protecting NJ From Attacks Out Of DC” section cataloguing the office’s challenges to the federal government. The page lists a steady stream of litigation and legal actions throughout 2026, including lawsuits involving health-care funding, mail voting, immigration enforcement and federal data demands.
Critics can fairly question how much New Jersey taxpayer money should be devoted to this seemingly permanent interstate legal campaign against Washington, particularly when many of these cases involve New Jersey joining large coalitions rather than litigating alone.
The newest wind cases therefore add two more fronts to what has become a defining feature of Davenport’s tenure: taking the Trump administration to court.
Whether Washington’s offshore-wind settlements actually cross the legal lines alleged by Davenport and her fellow attorneys general will now be decided in federal court.
