West Virginia v. James

Challenges to the constitutionality of New York's Climate Change Superfund Act.

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion by the New York Attorney General and the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to transfer business groups’ lawsuit challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act to the Northern District of New York. The court first noted that it was undisputed that the case could have been brought in the Northern District of New York, where West Virginia and other states and business associations had filed a challenge to the law several weeks before this lawsuit was filed. The court then determined that the transfer would serve the interests of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses. The court concluded that the interests of justice weighed heavily in favor of transfer because the “central issues” of this case and the West Virginia case were “substantially similar such that it would be inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome to litigate them in two separate courts.” The court distinguished this determination from its previous decision denying a motion to transfer the United States’ challenge to the Climate Change Superfund Act to the Northern District of New York. The court noted the difference in plaintiff types (federal government entities versus business organizations) and the presence in the United States’ case of “several legal issues” that did not overlap with the issues in this case. The court found that other factors such as the plaintiffs’ choice of forum and convenience to witnesses and parties either weighed only slightly in favor or against transfer or were neutral. The court also found that application of the “first-filed” rule would create an unrebutted presumption for transfer.

Challenges to the constitutionality of New York's Climate Change Superfund Act.

Four trade associations and business groups filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act (the Act), which the plaintiffs alleged was “a plainly unconstitutional law imposing $75 billion in strict liability on a targeted group of energy companies for their lawful conduct and the lawful conduct of third parties overwhelmingly undertaken in other jurisdictions.” The complaint alleged that the law is intended to impose strict liability for alleged impacts of climate change based on energy companies’ “purported shares of global, lawful greenhouse gas emissions based on completely unsubstantiated ‘attribution science.’” The plaintiffs asserted that the Act was precluded by the U.S. Constitution and federal law on multiple grounds, including because federal law controls liability for harms arising from interstate greenhouse gas emissions and because “the inherent structure of the Constitution of the United States recognizes the equal sovereignty afforded to all States.” They also asserted that the Clean Air Act preempts the Act and that the Act violates the Due Process Clause, the dormant Commerce Clause, the foreign Commerce Clause, the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A separate challenge to the Act by 22 states was already pending in the Northern District of New York.

On August 31, 2026, in two lawsuits brought by 22 states, business and trade associations, and a coal producer, the federal district court for the Northern District of New York ruled that federal law preempts New York State’s Climate Change Superfund Act (the Act). The Act established a $75 billion Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program to fund adaptation projects in the state, to be funded by companies that engaged in fossil fuel extraction or crude oil refining from 2000 to 2024 and that are responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions during that covered period. The court rejected the New York defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs lacked standing, finding that the plaintiffs showed that the coal producer and certain members of the plaintiff associations had shown that they “may legitimately fear receipt of a cost recovery demand” under the Act. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the Act’s text and its legislative history, including an October 2023 memorandum that identified the coal producer and plaintiff association members as companies against which New York could enforce an assessment under the Act. On the merits of the plaintiffs’ preemption claim, the court rejected New York’s efforts to distinguish the Act’s statutory scheme for compensation from New York City’s state law common law claims in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., in which the Second Circuit held that federal law preempted the City’s claims against fossil fuel companies for climate change-related damages. The district court further concluded that it was not necessary to determine whether the Constitution and federal common law would preempt the Act because “[e]ven if the federal interests ‘incompatible with the application of state law’ that preempted the City’s nuisance claims in City of New York do not, by themselves, justify preemption in this case,” the Climate Change Superfund Act would be preempted by the Clean Air Act. The court found that the Act was not entitled to a presumption against preemption because the statute regulated in an area governed by federal law “in the first place.” Citing City of New York, the district court further concluded that the Clean Air Act’s savings clause did not authorize the “type of state-law claims” the Climate Change Superfund Act codified. The district court also concluded that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act did not affect the preemption analysis, agreeing with plaintiffs that the “critical point” was that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The court also concluded that the foreign affairs preemption doctrine would bar any cost recovery demand under the Climate Change Superfund Act against a foreign producer. The court denied as moot motions by the plaintiffs and defendants to strike various declarations and expert affidavits. The court found it was not necessary to resolve these motions in order to resolve the motions for summary judgment on the preemption issue.

Challenges to the constitutionality of New York's Climate Change Superfund Act.

Challenges to the constitutionality of New York's Climate Change Superfund Act.

Challenges to the constitutionality of New York's Climate Change Superfund Act.