United States v. New York

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion by six nonprofit organizations to intervene to defend New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act in the lawsuit brought by the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. The six organizations were Food & Water Watch, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Catskill Mountainkeeper, Fridays For Future NYC, and Third Act Initiative, Inc. The organizations—which sought permissive intervention—described themselves as “devoted to addressing various aspects of the climate crisis, including adaptation, resilience, and corporate accountability,” and noted that some of proposed intervenors had played a “key role” in securing the Act’s passage. They argued that their participation as intervenors would “significantly contribute” to the “just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented,” given their “unique perspectives and deep experience with the challenged legislation and the issues it is designed to address.” The court found that the organizations’ “strong interest” in upholding the law was “well protected by the State’s strong interest in defending the statute,” and that the addition of the organizations as parties risked causing undue delay. The court granted the organizations leave to file an amici curiae brief.

The Office of the New York State Attorney General retained a law professor to opine on "international law, multilateral agreements, and United States climate policy relevant to the imposition of liability on fossil fuel corporations through New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act." He concluded "that the United States has incorrectly represented the international law and agreements that form the basis of their legal allegations."