Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Litigation

United States v. New York

Date
2025
Geography

About this case

Documents

Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
09/08/2025
Reply
Reply memorandum of law filed in support of Food & Water Watch et al.'s motion to intervene.
08/29/2025
Motion For Summary Judgment
Memorandum of law filed by plaintiffs in support of motion for summary judgment.
08/29/2025
Affidavit/Declaration
Declaration filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
08/15/2025
Motion To Intervene
Memorandum of law filed in support of Food & Water Watch et al.'s motion to intervene.
08/08/2025
Decision
Summary judgment motion briefing schedule set.
08/07/2025
Letter
Request filed by New York State Office of the Attorney General for extension of the deadline for response to the U.S.'s motion for summary judgment.
08/07/2025
Letter
Opposition filed by the U.S. to the defendants' request for an extension of time.
08/04/2025
Decision
New York defendants' motion to transfer denied and U.S. request to set schedule for summary judgment motion granted.
The federal district court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion by New York State, Governor Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James, and Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Amanda Lefton to transfer the action filed by the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act to the Northern District of New York, where an earlier challenge to the law had been filed by 22 states, along with trade associations and a mining company. The district court found that the “balance of convenience” exception provided a basis for departing from the presumption that the first-filed suit should have priority, noting that “great deference” was due to the U.S.’s selection of forum since other factors did not “tip decidedly” in one direction. The court also granted the U.S.’s request that it set a schedule for summary judgment motion.
08/01/2025
Opposition
Letter filed by United States opposing proposed motion to intervene.
08/01/2025
Reply
Reply filed in support of motion to set summary judgment briefing schedule.
07/28/2025
Reply
Reply memorandum filed in support of the State's motion to transfer venue.
07/28/2025
Letter
Letter filed notifying the court of environmental organizations' intent to file a motion to intervene.
07/24/2025
Letter
Letter filed by the State requesting that the court decline to set a briefing schedule for a summary judgment motion.
07/15/2025
Opposition
Memorandum of law filed by the United States and EPA in opposition to defendants' motion to transfer.
07/10/2025
Letter
Letter filed by the United States in response to court's July 2, 2025 order.
07/02/2025
Letter
Pre-motion letter filed by the United States advising of its intent to file a motion for summary judgment.
07/02/2025
Decision
Order directing the United States to respond to inquiries regarding its letter seeking to move for summary judgment.
06/20/2025
Answer
Answer filed by defendants.
06/13/2025
Motion
Memorandum filed in support of New York's motion to transfer venue.
06/06/2025
Decision
Defendants allowed to proceed with motion to transfer venue.
06/06/2025
Letter
Letter filed by the plaintiffs notifying the court that it would oppose the motion to transfer.
06/03/2025
Letter
Pre-motion letter submitted by the State advising the court of its intent to file a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of New York.
05/01/2025
Complaint
Complaint filed.
On May 1, 2025, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit against the State of New York asserting that the State's climate Superfund law is unconstitutional and unenforceable. The complaint alleged that the law, which the State enacted in 2024, is a “transparent monetary-extraction scheme” to force out-of-state fossil fuel companies to fund climate change adaptation projects within the state. The complaint alleged that the law attempts “to usurp the power of the federal government by regulating national and global emissions of greenhouse gases, violating federal law in multiple ways.” The United States alleged that the climate Superfund law is preempted by the Clean Air Act and foreign affairs doctrine, that it violates the limits on extraterritorial legislation imposed by the Constitution’s structure and due process principles, and that the law violates the Foreign and Interstate Commerce Clauses. The United States asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and unenforceable and to enjoin the State defendants from taking actions to implement or enforce the law. The United States filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/99017/">similar lawsuit</a> challenging Vermont's climate Superfund law. New York’s law has also been challenged by a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/west-virginia-v-james/">coalition of states, oil and gas trade groups, and a mining company</a> and by <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/chamber-of-commerce-of-the-united-states-of-america-v-james/">four trade associations and business groups</a>.

Summary

Action brought by the United States asserting that New York's Climate Change Superfund Act is unconstitutional and unenforceable.