Appeals court strikes down the order keeping a Michigan coal plant open

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that Energy Secretary Chris Wright failed to show that federal intervention was warranted, vacating the order that required the J.H. Campbell plant in Port Sheldon Township to keep operating^1,2. The Detroit News reported that federal judges struck down the order directing the Energy Department to continue operating the plant², and other outlets described the ruling as a rejection of the administration’s directive^4,6,10.

Wright had argued the 64-year-old J.H. Campbell Generating Plant was needed to ensure reliable electricity in the region, and used emergency powers to keep it running^4,6. The plant, in operation for over 60 years, had been scheduled for retirement on May 31, 2025⁸. Friday’s ruling applies only to the first of six emergency orders Wright has issued since May 2025 to keep the plant open^2,5.

Why it matters to investors

This is the first judicial defeat for the administration’s coal rescue campaign¹, and it sets a boundary on how far Washington can override a utility’s own retirement planning. Wright has argued the Energy Department is justified in halting long-planned power plant retirements to prevent grid reliability problems³. The court’s finding was narrower and more procedural: the department did not show that federal intervention was warranted¹.

For utilities, the practical question is who carries the cost of running a plant past its economic life. Critics have argued since last year that Wright was manufacturing an emergency to justify putting off the Campbell closure⁷. A ruling that the statutory emergency test has teeth changes the planning assumption for every operator holding a retirement date the department might contest.

What to watch

Because the decision reaches only the first of six orders⁵, the immediate question is whether the remaining five survive, are reissued on a stronger record, or are challenged in turn. The department has kept the plant running through successive orders since May 2025⁵, so vacating one does not by itself settle the plant’s fate.

The Michigan case is one of several legal disputes that have emerged across the country over the administration’s energy directives⁹. The reasoning here, that the case for federal intervention has to be shown rather than asserted^1,3, is the part most likely to travel to those other cases. Investors in generation assets and in the utilities that own them should watch whether the ruling is appealed and whether the department changes how it documents the next order^6,10.