United States v. New York

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

On September 23, 2026, in the United States and EPA’s challenge to the Climate Change Superfund Act, the federal district court for the Southern District of New York also held that the Act was preempted under the Clean Air Act and the foreign affairs doctrine. The court first concluded that the United States had standing for these two claims “to vindicate its sovereign authority to create and enforce a regulatory scheme pursuant to the Clean Air Act and its exclusive authority to conduct foreign affairs.” With respect to the Clean Air Act preemption claim, the court found that the United States asserted a concrete harm because the Act “provides for the levying of substantial fees on entities without regard to the manner in which the federal government has chosen to balance” competing environmental, energy, and economic interests and “for a time period when those emissions were regulated by the EPA.” With respect to foreign affairs preemption, the court found that the United States asserted a cognizable and concrete injury based on alleged interference with “the work of the federal government in forging international agreements consistent with national policy addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions” and also alleged conflict with the U.S.’s “longstanding foreign policy position against liability and compensation schemes for emissions.” The court further found that these asserted injuries were particularized to the United States, actual and imminent, fairly traceable to the defendants charged with enforcing the Act, and redressable by the court. On the merits of the Clean Air Act preemption claim, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that the Act’s compensation scheme for past greenhouse gas emissions did not regulate emissions. The court described a “backdrop” of precedent establishing that federal common law, rather than state law, traditionally governed interstate air pollution; that the Clean Air Act displaced attempts to abate greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law; and that suits asserting state common law claims to regulate interstate greenhouse gas emissions were also barred. Citing City of New York v. Chevron Corp., the court concluded that because the Climate Change Superfund Act “treads on the same ground as the federal common law governing interstate air pollution disputes,” it was only necessary to determine that the Clean Air Act did not authorize the Act to find that the Act was preempted. Again citing City of New York as controlling, the court concluded that the Clean Air Act did not authorize the Act. The court further concluded that EPA’s rescission of the Clean Air Act endangerment finding for greenhouse gases from motor vehicles did not alter this conclusion. On the merits of the foreign affairs preemption claim, the court concluded that the preemption doctrine applied because (1) the Climate Change Superfund Act “does not regulate an area of traditional state responsibility” because “[t]he harm caused by global warming ‘presents a uniquely international problem’ that is ‘not well-suited to the application of state law,” and (2) the Act “intrudes on the federal government’s foreign affairs powers” because addressing global greenhouse gas emissions is the subject of foreign policy. The court found that the U.S.’s announced intent to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change “does not make the regulation of greenhouse gases emitted from extraterritorial sources any less a matter falling within the sphere of the foreign policy of the United States.” The court therefore concluded that the Act, “as applied to foreign activities of fossil fuel producers, is field-preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine.” The court dismissed the U.S.’s remaining claims without prejudice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State defendants requested permission to file a supplemental brief addressing EPA's rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding and the United Nations' determination that the U.S.'s decision to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change would take effect on February 27, 2027. The court granted the request on the same day it was made.

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

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

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."

A climate scientist was retained by the defendants "to explain the different types of emissions that climate scientists consider in connection with attributing greenhouse gas emissions to companies that extract or refine and then sell fossil fuels." His declaration also explained "the methodological approaches scientists take in making attributions of particular climate-change harms from the greenhouse gas emissions traceable to particular fossil fuel extractors or refiners."

The Office of the New York State Attorney General retained an economist to opine on the economic effects of the Climate Change Superfund Act and to respond to the plaintiffs' statements regarding the Act's effects. His declaration described the United States as asserting that the Act "will raise the cost of fossil fuels for individuals and for the United States and threaten revenue the United States receives from fossil fuel leasing on federal lands" and that the Act "will discourage investment and innovation in the fossil fuel industry and disrupt national and international markets for fossil fuels." The economist concluded that the Act will have no effect on prices and therefore no effect on individuals demand for or use of fossil fuel products. He also concluded that the Act "will have no effect on the availability of fossil fuels in the United States, no effect on the future value of oil and gas resources, and no effect on the revenue of the United States from fossil fuel leasing on federal lands."

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

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

The court issued an order directing that the clerk terminate the State defendants' pre-motion letter proposing to file a cross-motion for summary judgment and to set a new briefing schedule. The court indicated that the defendants could address the issues raised in their pre-motion letter (i.e., standing and whether the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit) in the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The court said that if the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion was denied, it would hear from the parties as to the appropriateness of the defendants' filing their proposed motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 similar lawsuit challenging Vermont's climate Superfund law. New York’s law has also been challenged by a coalition of states, oil and gas trade groups, and a mining company and by four trade associations and business groups.