NEW YORK — A coalition of nine states has opened a new legal front in the political fight over offshore wind, asking federal courts to stop Trump administration agreements that would pay two energy developers about $1.4 billion to surrender four federal leases.

New York is leading Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont in two lawsuits filed Tuesday against deals involving Bluepoint Wind and Invenergy. California filed a separate case challenging the Invenergy agreement as it applies to a lease off its coast. The actions turn a dispute over energy policy into a broader test of presidential power, congressional spending rules and the federal government’s obligations to states planning for rising electricity demand.

The official New York announcement says the Interior Department agreed to pay Bluepoint $765 million and Invenergy $653 million from the federal Judgment Fund. In exchange, Bluepoint would relinquish its New York-area lease and redirect money toward a liquefied-natural-gas project, while Invenergy would give up three leases and invest in natural-gas and geothermal projects.

The states allege that the arrangements exceed Interior’s authority and misuse a fund Congress created to resolve valid legal claims against the government. They say the agreements violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and federal spending laws. Those are allegations that courts have not yet resolved.

A strategy shifts from orders to settlements

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized wind power and directed his administration to restrict offshore development. That policy encountered a series of court setbacks. In January, a federal judge allowed Equinor to resume its Empire Wind project off New York after finding that a federal stop-work order threatened irreparable harm. Reuters reported that the decision followed a similar ruling allowing Orsted to restart work on a Rhode Island project.

The latest cases focus on a different mechanism: negotiated payments that end leases rather than administrative orders that suspend construction. The states argue that the change in method does not cure the underlying legal problem. Their complaints ask courts to void the cancellations and prevent the government from carrying out the payments.

Interior did not respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has defended the broader approach by saying companies are moving capital toward energy infrastructure the administration considers more reliable and capable of lowering utility costs. The administration’s position reflects its preference for fossil fuels and geothermal development over offshore wind.

The grid stakes behind the lawsuit

The immediate dispute is financial, but the states are framing it around grid planning and consumer costs. New York officials say the two canceled projects serving their state represented more than $16 billion in expected investment and more than 2,800 jobs. Across all four leases, they estimate the projects could have produced more than eight gigawatts of electricity, enough for more than four million homes.

Bluepoint’s own project description said its lease area, 38 nautical miles from New York and 53 nautical miles from New Jersey, was designed for up to 2.4 gigawatts — roughly enough to serve one million homes. The company’s public page still describes the project in planned terms, underscoring how quickly federal policy has altered the development path.

New York projects electricity demand will rise 8 percent by 2030 and 24 percent by 2040, partly because of data centers and other large users. State officials argue that canceling generation near the region could worsen congestion and increase prices as older plants retire. California, meanwhile, has its own offshore-wind development mandates, including a state plan for port readiness and domestic supply chains.

Those forecasts do not guarantee that every proposed project would be completed on time or at its initial cost. Offshore wind projects have faced inflation, supply-chain constraints, permitting disputes and local opposition. But the states contend that the federal government cannot lawfully substitute a categorical political preference for the regulatory process Congress established.

What the courts will decide

The lawsuits will likely turn first on standing, the terms of the lease cancellations and whether the Judgment Fund may be used when no active damages judgment is pending. The administration can argue that settlements avoid future liabilities and redirect private investment toward resources it considers more dependable. The states will answer that the government manufactured a payout to accomplish through contracts what courts had blocked through executive action.

Independent coverage from The Guardian and the AP places the two challenged agreements within nearly $4 billion in federal commitments to unwind offshore-wind projects nationwide. That scale raises the stakes beyond any single lease. A ruling for the states could limit how administrations use settlement authority to reverse prior energy policy; a ruling for the federal government could give presidents a powerful route to reshape long-term infrastructure development without new legislation.

For now, the agreements remain contested rather than canceled. The cases add another high-profile dispute to the growing docket between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration, with electricity planning, federal spending authority and the pace of the energy transition all before the courts.