West Virginia v. James

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On October 15, 2025, the Office of the New York Attorney General requested that the court consolidate this suit with a challenge brought by business groups that originally was filed in the Southern District of New York. The court granted the motion on October 20.

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.

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.

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.

West Virginia and 21 other states, along with several coal, oil, and gas trade associations and a mining company, filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York challenging New York State’s Climate Change Superfund Act. The 2024 law established a $75 billion Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program to fund adaptation projects in the state. The program is to be funded by companies that engaged in fossil fuel extraction or crude oil refining during a covered period and that are responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions during that period. The complaint alleged that the law was preempted under the U.S. Constitution because it “invades the equal sovereignty of other States by unconstitutionally imposing liability and penalties on energy companies outside of New York for greenhouse gas emissions produced by lawful activities outside of New York’s borders.” The plaintiffs also alleged that the New York law undermined federalism principles by inserting state law where there are “[u]niquely federal interests.” The complaint also asserted that the law was preempted under the Clean Air Act and violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the foreign Commerce Clause. In addition, plaintiffs claimed that the law was retroactive in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, effected a regulatory taking under the U.S. and New York constitutions, and violated the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.