On April 8, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14260, which instructed the U.S. Attorney General to “identify all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources that are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.” The President further directed the Attorney General to “expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement” of any identified laws and the continuation of any civil actions.

This page tracks lawsuits filed by the United States pursuant to Executive Order 14260.

New York’s Climate Change Superfund Law
Vermont’s Climate Change Superfund Law
Hawaii’s Climate Liability Lawsuit
Michigan’s Climate Liability Lawsuit

New York
Preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause Challenges to State Climate Change Superfund Law
United States & United States Environmental Protection Agency v. State of New York
Recent Developments: Complaints filed May 2025

Case Documents

Case Summary
The United States and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the State of New York alleging that New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act is unconstitutional and unenforceable. The complaint maintains that New York’s Superfund Act violates the Supremacy Clause, Due Process Clause, dormant Commerce Clause, Foreign Commerce Clause, and foreign affairs doctrine. In addition, various industry groups filed a similar lawsuit in the same district and twenty-two states filed a similar claims in the Northern District of New York. The United States and industry groups have also challenged a similar state superfund law in Vermont.

In December 2024, New York enacted the Climate Change Superfund Act, which establishes a climate change adaptation cost recovery program. The law imposes strict liability on certain fossil fuel companies whose “historic contribution to the buildup of greenhouse gases [ ] is largely responsible for climate change.” These companies are required to pay into a fund for state infrastructure improvements that are “necessary for comprehensive adaptation to the impacts of climate change in New York state.” The amount each entity must compensate New York is based on the business’s pro rata share of fossil fuels extracted and refined from 2000 through 2024.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Superfund Act on a number of grounds. First, the United States alleges that the Superfund Act violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution because it is preempted by the Clean Air Act. According to the complaint, the Superfund Act “impermissibly regulates out-of-state greenhouse gas emissions and obstructs the Clean Air Act’s comprehensive federal-state framework and EPA’s regulatory discretion.”

Second, the plaintiffs argue that the Superfund Act “violates the Constitution by imposing extraterritorial liability for primarily out-of-state” activities and emissions. The complaint maintains that this extraterritorial liability “violates the Constitution’s structure and principles of due process by imposing economic sanctions on fossil fuel businesses for economic activities that occurred primarily in other states.”

The complaint further asserts dormant Commerce Clause claims: the Superfund Act “discriminates against interstate commerce facially, in practical effect, and in purpose targeting commercial activity—fossil fuel extraction and refining—that occurs primarily if not exclusively in States other than New York.” Echoing the dormant Commerce Clause test that excuses a state’s discriminatory law, the United States maintains that New York does not have a “legitimate local purpose” in establishing the infrastructure fund. Even if the court reads the law as non-discriminatory, the United States argues that it still violates the dormant Commerce Clause because the law’s “substantial burden” on interstate commerce is “clearly excessive” in relation to the benefits.

Similarly, the United States also alleges that the Superfund Act violates the Foreign Commerce Clause. According to the complaint, the Superfund Act discriminates against foreign commerce because it “directly regulates worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining with minimal nexus to New York, imposes a disproportionate $75 billion burden on foreign commerce, and undermines the federal government’s ability to maintain uniformity in regulating environmental, trade, and national security policy.” Finally, the United States asserts that because the Superfund Act attempts to impose liability on emissions “purportedly attributable to worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining,” New York could “undermine the ability of the United States to speak with one voice on a matter of pressing interest around the globe,” complicate “relations with foreign countries,” and “interfere” with foreign policy.

New York’s law is also being challenged in the Northern District of New York by twenty-two states. In addition to asserting arguments analogous to those advanced by the United States, the states raise a number of other issues. First, the states assert that the Superfund Act violates principles of equal sovereignty afforded to states under the structure of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the states maintain that the Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article One, Section 6 of the New York Constitution by “impos[ing] a harsh, retroactive penalty” with “insufficient procedural safeguards.” Next, the complaint maintains that the Superfund Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it “aims to protect New York energy producers while harming out-of-state ones.” The states also allege that New York imposes “an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” and that the law “is an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment” because it imposes substantial retroactive penalties and significantly interferes with producers’ investment-backed expectations.

Industry groups are also challenging the law in the Southern District of New York. The claims asserted by the trade associations largely mirror those made by the United States and the states in their respective litigation.

Filed Briefs
Complaint (May 1, 2025)
US Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 29, 2025)
New York’s Memorandum in Opposition to US Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 27, 2025)
US Reply to New York’s Memorandum in Opposition (Nov. 19, 2025)
New York City’s amicus brief in support of New York (Nov. 7, 2025)

_________________

Vermont
Preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause Challenges to State Climate Change Superfund Law
United States & United States Environmental Protection Agency v. State of Vermont
Recent Developments: Complaint filed May 2025
Case Documents

Case Summary
The United States and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a complaint in the federal district court of Vermont alleging that Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act violates federal law and the Constitution. The complaint maintains that Vermont’s Superfund Act violates the Supremacy Clause, Due Process Clause, dormant Commerce Clause, Foreign Commerce Clause, and foreign affairs doctrine. The United States, twenty-two states, and industry groups have filed separate challenges to a similar state superfund law in New York.

In May 2024, Vermont enacted the Climate Superfund Act, which imposes strict liability on certain businesses that contributed to greenhouse gas emissions when they extracted and refined fossil fuels from 1995 to 2024. The Superfund Act authorizes the state to “secure compensatory payments” from the parties responsible for covered greenhouse gas emissions in order to “provide a source of revenue for climate change adaptation projects” in the state. To assess costs, the State Treasurer first “calculate[s] the total cost to the State of Vermont and its residents from the emission of covered greenhouse gases” from 1995 to 2024. The amount each entity must pay is “based on the entity’s pro rata share of fossil fuels extracted and refined” during the covered period.

In its complaint, the United States alleges that Vermont’s law is preempted by the Clean Air Act. The United States frames Vermont’s law as “attempting to regulate emissions worldwide,” which is “the type of state regulation of out-of-state greenhouse gas emission preempted by the Clean Air Act[‘s]” comprehensive framework. Additionally, the United States maintains that the Superfund Act undermines EPA’s regulatory choices and “obstructs the Clean Air Act’s integrated approach to air pollution control.”

Next, the United States maintains that Vermont’s Superfund Act “violates the Constitution by imposing extraterritorial liability for primarily out-of-state” activities and emissions. This alleged extraterritorial regulation frustrates the Fourteenth Amendment and “violates the Constitution’s structure and principles of due process by imposing economic sanctions on fossil fuel businesses for economic activities that occurred primarily in other states.”

Similarly, the plaintiffs assert that Vermont’s law discriminates against interstate commerce facially, in practical effect, and in purpose, because the targeted commercial activity “occurs primarily if not exclusively in States other than Vermont.” Echoing the dormant Commerce Clause test that excuses a state’s discriminatory law, the United States claims that Vermont’s law does not have a “legitimate local purpose.” Even if the court finds that the law is not discriminatory, the complaint argues that the law nonetheless violates the dormant Commerce Clause becaues it imposes a “substantial burden” on interstate commerce that is “clearly excessive” in relation to the benefits.

The United States’ complaint also alleges the Vermont’s law violates the Foreign Commerce Clause. The plaintiffs allege that the Superfund Act “directly regulates worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining with minimal nexus to Vermont, imposes a disproportionate burden on foreign commerce, and undermines the federal government’s ability to maintain uniformity” across regulations. Finally, the United States alleges that Vermont’s law is preempted by the foreign affairs doctrine because the state “undermine[s] the ability of the United States to speak with one voice on a matter of pressing interest around the world.”

In December 2024, industry groups also challenged Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act. Advancing similar legal theories to those articulated in the United States’ complaint, industry asserts that the Superfund Act is preempted by the Clean Air Act, violates the dormant Commerce Clause, and is impermissible extraterritorial regulation. Additionally, the parties maintain that the cost recovery demands are prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment because they impose harsh penalties for legal activities and constitute an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Filed Briefs
Complaint (May 1, 2025)
Intervening States’ Complaint (May 7, 2025)
Vermont’s Motion to Dismiss US Complaint (Aug. 15, 2025)
Vermont’s Motion to Dismiss Industry and States’ Complaints (Aug. 15, 2025)
Intervenor-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Aug. 22, 2025)
US Response to Motions to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment (Sep. 15, 2025)
Industry Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Sep. 15, 2025)
Industry Opposition to Vermont’s and Intervenor-Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Sep. 15, 2025)
Intervening States’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Sep. 15, 2025)
Vermont’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment, and in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 17, 2025)
Intervenor-Defendants Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 21, 2025)

_________________

Hawaii
Preemptive Constitutional Challenges to State Lawsuit Against Fossil Fuel Companies
United States v. State of Hawaii
Recent Developments: Complaint filed April 2025
Case Documents
Case Summary
The United States filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the State of Hawaii seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block Hawaii from pursuing litigation against fossil fuel companies. The complaint alleges that “Hawaii intends to sue fossil fuel companies to seek damages for alleged climate change harms.” and claims that Hawaii’s lawsuit would violate numerous Constitutional provisions. As a result, the United States maintains that suing Hawaii is necessary to “vindicate its sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.” Hawaii nonetheless sued fossil fuel companies in state court the day after the federal government filed suit. The United States filed a similar lawsuit against the State of Michigan.

The United States alleges that Hawaii’s anticipated lawsuit “seeking to hold fossil fuel businesses liable for global greenhouse gas emissions,” would violates the Supremacy Clause because it would intrude into a field exclusively occupied by federal law. The United States maintains that Hawaii’s state law claims would conflict with the Clean Air Act because they undermine the “carefully calibrated cooperative federalism scheme and EPA’s discretion in regulating greenhouse gas emissions.” The complaint claims that retroactive liability for lawful conduct would “second-guess EPA’s regulatory choices and impose penalties that Congress did not authorize,” therefore “obstructing the Clean Air Act’s goal of balancing environmental protection with economic growth.”

Next, the United States argues that Hawaii’s anticipated lawsuit would violate the Due Process Clause and “concepts of State sovereignty and federalism” by imposing “extraterritorial liability for primarily out-of-state extraction and refining activities and out-of-state greenhouse gas emissions.” Citing the Due Process Clause, the complaint contends that Hawaii’s state law claims overreach “by seeking to regulate” fossil fuel emissions beyond the state’s territorial jurisdiction.

The United States also alleges that Hawaii’s anticipated lawsuit would violate the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating – facially, in practical effect, and in purpose – against interstate commerce. The United States maintains that Hawaii has no legitimate local public interest in discriminating against fossil fuel extraction and refining. The United States also argues that even if the state claims only incidentally burden interstate commerce, this burden is excessive in relation to local benefits. The complaint explains that Hawaii would impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce by disrupting the national market for fossil fuels, increasing interstate energy costs, and creating the potential for a patchwork of states to pursue similar strategies, therefore undermining “the uniform national energy market.”

The complaint alleges that Hawaii’s anticipated lawsuit would also discriminate against foreign commerce, therefore violating the Foreign Commerce Clause. To support this claim, the complaint claims that Hawaii’s lawsuit “seek[s] to impose liability” on fossil fuel extraction and refining that occurred in foreign countries. Additionally, the anticipated lawsuit “would enhance the risk of multiple States imposing overlapping liability on foreign commerce for the same activities” and would harm the federal government’s “capacity to speak with one voice when conducting commercial relations with foreign governments.”

Similarly, the United States alleges that Hawaii’s anticipated lawsuit is preempted by the foreign affairs doctrine because it interferes with the country’s “foreign policy on greenhouse gas regulation,” such as the country’s intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Filed Briefs
Complaint (Apr. 30, 2025)
Hawaii’s Memo in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Jul. 25, 2025)

_________________

Michigan
Preemptive Constitutional Challenges to State Lawsuit Against Fossil Fuel Companies
United States v. State of Hawaii
Recent Developments: Complaint filed April 2025
Case Documents

Case Summary
The United States filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the State of Michigan seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block Michigan from pursuing litigation against fossil fuel companies. The complaint, filed in the Western District of Michigan, maintains that “Michigan intends to sue fossil fuel companies to seek damages for alleged climate change harms.” In its complaint, the United States claims that Michigan’s anticipated litigation against fossil fuel companies would violate a number of Constitutional provisions, including the Supremacy Clause, Due Process Clause, the dormant Commerce Clause, and others. As a result, the United States maintains that suing Michigan is necessary to “vindicate its sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.” The state’s attorney general has indicated that the state intends to proceed with its lawsuit. The United States filed a similar lawsuit against the State of Hawaii.

In its complaint, the United States alleges that Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit “seeking to hold fossil fuel businesses liable for global greenhouse gas emissions,” usurps the Clean Air Act in violation of the Supremacy Clause. Michigan’s anticipated state law claims, according to the complaint, would conflict with the Clean Air Act because they undermine the “carefully calibrated cooperative federalism scheme and EPA’s discretion in regulating greenhouse gas emissions.” The complaint claims that retroactive liability for lawful conduct is Michigan “second-guess[ing] EPA’s regulatory choices and impos[ing] penalties that Congress did not authorize,” therefore “obstructing the Clean Air Act’s goal of balancing environmental protection with economic growth.”

Second, the United States argues that Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit would violate the Due Process Clause and “concepts of State sovereignty and federalism” by imposing “extraterritorial liability for primarily out-of-state extraction and refining activities and out-of-state greenhouse gas emissions.” Citing the Due Process Clause, the complaint contends that Michigan’s state law claims overreach “by seeking to regulate” fossil fuel emissions beyond the state’s territorial limits.

The United States also maintains that Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit would violate the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating – facially, in practical effect, and in purpose – against interstate commerce. The plaintiff maintains that Michigan has no legitimate local public interest in discriminating against fossil fuel extraction and refining. The United States also argues that even if Michigan’s anticipated claims only incidentally burden interstate commerce, this burden is excessive in relation to local benefits. The complaint claims that Michigan would impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce by disrupting the national market for fossil fuels, increasing interstate energy costs, and creating the potential for a patchwork of states to pursue similar strategies therefore undermining “the uniform national energy market.”

The complaint further alleges that Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit violates the Foreign Commerce Clause by “seeking to impose liability” on fossil fuel extraction and refining that occurred in foreign countries. Additionally, Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit “would enhance the risk of multiple States imposing overlapping liability on foreign commerce for the same activities” and would harm the federal government’s “capacity to speak with one voice when conducting commercial relations with foreign governments.” Michigan’s anticipated litigation would also seek to “impose[] a disproportionate burden on foreign commerce and undermine the federal government’s ability to maintain uniformity” in foreign policy, in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause.

Similarly, the United States alleges that Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit is preempted by the foreign affairs doctrine because it interferes with the country’s “foreign policy on greenhouse gas regulation,” such as the country’s participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Filed Briefs
Complaint (Apr. 30, 2025)
Amended Complaint (Jul. 11, 2025)
Michigan’s Memo in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Jul. 31, 2025)