In an assertive move this week, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched lawsuits against four U.S. states, contending that their climate initiatives clash with federal regulation and the energy dominance strategy put forward by former President Donald Trump. The DOJ’s actions underscore a significant federal pushback against state-led climate litigation aimed at fossil fuel corporations.
On Wednesday, the DOJ initiated legal proceedings against Hawaii and Michigan over their respective litigation strategies targeting energy companies for environmental damages attributed to climate change. This move was followed by suits against New York and Vermont on Thursday, aiming to contest these states’ climate superfund laws designed to compel fossil fuel companies to contribute to state-established funds based on their past greenhouse gas emissions.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi expressed strong opposition, describing these state actions as hindrances to American energy independence and security. She emphasized the DOJ’s goal to halt these perceived barriers to the provision of affordable, reliable energy for Americans.
Legal scholars noted the unprecedented nature of the DOJ’s lawsuits, which represent a significant challenge to the states’ ability to implement climate policies without federal intrusion, thereby renewing debates over state versus federal jurisdiction in environmental regulation.
The DOJ’s legal documentation articulates concerns that state-led initiatives counteract federal policies, potentially elevating energy costs and unsettling the national energy market. It further contends that state actions contravene constitutional principles, infringe on federal foreign affairs prerogatives, and are superseded by the Clean Air Act, which appoints the Environmental Protection Agency as the principal body for air emissions regulation.
The lawsuits argue states’ efforts to pass legislation and pursue litigation against energy firms could stymie the EPA’s purview over greenhouse gas emissions. By attempting to regulate emissions beyond their borders, states purportedly overstep their reach and sideline the federal oversight mechanisms.
Responses from the states were prompt and resolute. Hawaii’s government, under Democratic Governor Josh Green, confirmed its lawsuit against multiple energy corporations and the American Petroleum Institute accused of harming public resources. Governor Green stressed the importance of holding those culpable for climate impacts, such as the catastrophic 2023 Lahaina wildfire, accountable. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, also a Democrat, criticized the DOJ’s lawsuit as without merit, asserting confidence in the state’s right to pursue claims in court against the fossil fuel industry’s detrimental environmental impacts.
The DOJ deemed the states’ Superfund Acts, adaptations of a long-standing federal law for hazardous waste remediation, as mechanisms of financial extraction against energy companies. Former President Trump notably criticized these laws for imposing unfair financial obligations on energy industries.
New York, seeking $75 billion in redress, faces opposition from over 20 other states regarding its superfund statute, while Vermont has yet to specify a monetary target. Both states defend their initiatives as measures to ensure polluters shoulder responsibility for environmental degradation, a stance articulated by New York Attorney General Letitia James and Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark.
The DOJ’s filings reiterate Trump-era rhetoric on the necessity for energy independence and caution against state actions that could impede national energy security. Legal experts voiced apprehension over the federal government’s robust challenge, with Columbia University’s Michael Gerrard and UCLA’s Ann Carlson remarking on the unusual nature of preemptive federal interference in state litigation.
Carlson observed contradictions in the DOJ’s position with respect to the Clean Air Act’s enforcement and the broader federal aim to minimize states’ regulatory power, assisting the fossil fuel sector. The Trump administration’s extensive rollback of environmental protections continues to shape the landscape of federal and state interactions over climate policy, reflecting a clear priority on fossil fuel investments and deregulation.