Whether the First Circuit's decision improperly defers to agency interpretations of federal statutes in violation of recent Supreme Court precedent

In 2021, the federal government launched an ambitious initiative to diminish demand for fossil fuels by approving dozens of wind energy generation projects in federal waters on the outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) off the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts. Pursuant to that initiative, the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Defense, acting through their sub-agencies and officers (“Federal Respondents”), jointly prepared an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) leading to the approval of the construction and operations plan of the Vineyard Wind 1 project, the first of many such large-scale, industrial offshore wind energy projects slated for the OCS. Prior to this case, no court had ever reviewed such an approval. Petitioners challenged the Vineyard Wind 1 project approval as contrary to the texts of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) and NEPA. The record showed the project would result in momentous adverse impacts on marine navigation, public safety, the environment, and national security. The First Circuit rejected the challenge by adopting the lower court’s uncritical reliance on the Federal Respondents’ presumed discretion to interpret the statutory texts. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the First Circuit’s decision conflicts with Loper Bright Enters v. Raimondo , 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which requires courts to independently determine the meaning of federal statutes rather than deferring to agency interpretations. ii 2. Whether the First Circuit’s decision conflicts with La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC , 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986), which held that “an agency literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it.”