- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- New York
- /
- West Virginia v. James
West Virginia v. James
About this case
Filing year
2025
Status
Motion filed by plaintiffs West Virginia et al. to strike declarations of Don Fullerton, Justin Mankin, and Harold Hongju Koh.
Geography
Docket number
1:25-cv-00168
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (N.D.N.Y.)
Case category
Constitutional Claims (US) → Commerce Clause (US)Constitutional Claims (US) → Fourteenth Amendment (US)Constitutional Claims (US) → Other Constitutional Claims (US)
Principal law
United States → Clean Air Act (CAA)United States → Commerce ClauseUnited States → Eighth AmendmentUnited States → Fifth Amendment—TakingsUnited States → Foreign Commerce ClauseUnited States → Fourteenth Amendment—Due ProcessUnited States → Fourteenth Amendment—Equal ProtectionUnited States → State Constitutions → New York ConstitutionUnited States → State Law—Miscellaneous Statutes → New York Climate Change Superfund ActUnited States → Supremacy Clause
At issue
Challenges to the constitutionality of New York's Climate Change Superfund Act.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
02/13/2026
Motion filed by plaintiffs West Virginia et al. to strike declarations of Don Fullerton, Justin Mankin, and Harold Hongju Koh.
Motion
–
02/13/2026
Plaintiffs West Virginia et al. filed response in opposition to defendants' motion to strike the declaration of Benjamin Zychar and part of the declaration of Christopher Landau.
Response
–
02/13/2026
Plaintiffs West Virginia et al. filed reply in support of motion for summary judgment and response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Reply
–
02/13/2026
Motion to strike declarations of Justin Mankin, Don Fullerton, and Harold Koh filed by plaintiffs Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al.
Motion
–
02/13/2026
Plaintiffs Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. filed combined reply in support of their motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II and opposition to defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.
Reply
–
02/13/2026
Opposition filed by United States to defendants' motion to strike part of the declaration of Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau.
Opposition
–
12/23/2025
Motion filed by City of New York to file an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants' motion, and opposition to plaintiffs' motions, for summary judgment.
Amicus Motion/Brief
–
12/22/2025
Motion filed by nonprofit organizations for leave to file amicus brief.
Amicus Motion/Brief
–
12/22/2025
Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Kirsten Gillibrand filed motion for leave to file amicus brief in support of defendants' motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment.
Amicus Motion/Brief
–
12/20/2025
Cross-motion for summary judgment filed by New York.
Motion For Summary Judgment
–
12/20/2025
Motion filed by New York to strike the declaration of Benjamin Zycher and part of the declaration of Christopher Landau.
Motion
–
11/07/2025
Statement of Interest filed by the United States.
Statement
–
11/06/2025
Nonprofit organizations' motion to intervene as defendants denied.
Decision
–
10/31/2025
Motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II filed by plaintiffs West Virginia et al.
Motion For Summary Judgment
–
10/31/2025
Motion for partial summary judgment on Counts I and II filed by plaintiffs Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al.
Motion For Summary Judgment
–
10/15/2025
Letter filed by defendants requesting that the court consolidate West Virginia v. James and Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. James.
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.
Motion
–
10/01/2025
Opposition filed by plaintiffs to proposed intervenors' objections to Report and Recommendation.
Opposition
–
09/17/2025
Objections filed by nonprofit organizations to Report and Recommendation recommending denial of their motion for permissive intervention.
Opposition
–
09/17/2025
Letter filed by the Office of the New York Attorney General in response to the Report and Recommendation recommending denial of the intervention motion.
Letter
–
07/01/2025
Notice of supplemental authority filed by the proposed defendant-intervenors.
Notice
–
05/02/2025
Opposition filed by plaintiffs to proposed intervenors' motion to intervene.
Opposition
–
04/11/2025
Motion to intervene to defend the Climate Change Superfund Act filed by nonprofit organizations.
Motion To Intervene
–
02/06/2025
Complaint filed.
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.
Complaint
–
Summary
Challenges to the constitutionality of New York's Climate Change Superfund Act.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance