US DOJ Sues Four States to Block Climate Deception Litigation and Climate Superfund Legislation

The Trump administration has filed lawsuits against four states—New York, Vermont, Hawaii, and Michigan—aimed at halting recent climate-related legislation and/or litigation efforts. These state initiatives seek to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for environmental damage(s) tied to climate change. The federal challenges reflect a growing battle over the scope of state powers in environmental governance and raise important legal questions that could shape the future of climate accountability nationwide.

State Climate Accountability Laws in Context

Over the past year, several states have introduced legislation modeled on the federal Superfund law to impose liability on major greenhouse gas emitters. Notably, New York passed the Climate Change Superfund Act, which authorized the state to pursue billions from companies whose emissions have significantly contributed to climate-related harms.

The legislation sparked national attention—and controversy. In a sharp rebuke, a coalition of 22 Republican-led states submitted a letter opposing the law, arguing that it conflicts with federal environmental policy and threatens to impose extraterritorial economic penalties. These states warned that New York’s approach could fragment national energy policy and set a troubling precedent for interstate litigation. On February 6, 2025, those 22 states joined coal, oil, and gas trade associations in suing the State of New York to block its Climate Superfund Law (Read my April 5, 2025 article, here, to learn more).

Climate Deception Lawsuits: A Legal Reckoning for Misinformation

An emerging front in climate litigation focuses not just on the environmental impact of fossil fuels, but on the longstanding misinformation allegedly spread by major energy companies. Known as climate deception cases, these lawsuits accuse oil and gas firms of concealing or downplaying scientific evidence linking their products to global warming, often dating back decades.

States like Hawaii and Michigan have taken steps to challenge this history of corporate communication. Hawaii recently filed a comprehensive suit asserting that fossil fuel companies deliberately misled the public about the risks of their operations, contributing to climate-related harms across the islands. The case invokes multiple legal theories, including consumer protection violations, public nuisance, and failure to warn, and pursues accountability for the burden imposed on state infrastructure and natural resources.

Michigan, while not yet having filed its complaint, has publicly signaled its intent to pursue similar legal action. Its attorney general has been sharply critical of the Trump administration's preemptive legal maneuvering, which she argues aims to stifle legitimate efforts to hold corporations accountable under state law.

These lawsuits follow a broader national trend: since 2018, over two dozen municipalities and states have initiated similar claims. While outcomes vary, and some face procedural hurdles like standing or jurisdiction, others are proceeding to discovery, potentially uncovering internal documents that could significantly shape public and legal narratives about the fossil fuel industry’s role in the climate crisis.

This area of litigation is gaining momentum and scrutiny, particularly in light of federal attempts to limit such state-level initiatives through executive action and litigation. For stakeholders — from energy companies to public agencies — understanding this legal trend is critical, as it signals a shift in how climate responsibility may be assessed in courtrooms across the country.

Federal Intervention: Lawsuits Against Four States

The DOJ’s recent lawsuits go further than prior lawsuits brought by other states, formally challenging the constitutionality of climate superfund legislation and related deception-based litigation in four states:

• New York and Vermont have enacted climate superfund laws to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for the historical costs of climate change impacts, such as infrastructure damage from extreme weather.

• Hawaii and Michigan are pursuing public nuisance and consumer protection suits, alleging fossil fuel companies misled consumers and policymakers about the risks of carbon emissions.

The federal government’s argument hinges on three core legal doctrines:

1. Federal Preemption: Citing the Clean Air Act, the DOJ argues that only the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that state laws attempting to do so are preempted.

2. Dormant Commerce Clause: These laws, the DOJ claims, unduly burden interstate commerce by penalizing out-of-state conduct.

3. Foreign Affairs Doctrine: By attempting to hold multinational companies liable for global emissions, the states allegedly interfere with the federal government’s exclusive control over foreign relations.

States Push Back

State attorneys general and governors have rejected the federal government’s arguments, defending their right to protect public health and the environment. They argue that their laws do not attempt to regulate emissions directly but rather obtain compensation for damages—a distinction that could prove crucial in court.

New York, in particular, has emphasized that its law is narrowly tailored to address state-level climate costs and was developed using peer-reviewed methodologies for allocating corporate liability based on historic emissions.

Legal and Strategic Implications

These lawsuits strike at the heart of evolving climate liability frameworks and could impact the balance of power between state and federal environmental authority. If successful, they may curb similar legislation in other states. If unsuccessful, they could embolden more states to pursue aggressive legal action against fossil fuel producers.

For companies in the energy, insurance, and manufacturing sectors, these developments signal increased litigation and regulatory risk. Understanding the legal landscape—and preparing for potential state-level liabilities—will be essential.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s litigation against state climate accountability efforts represents a pivotal moment in US environmental law. These cases could redefine the limits of state authority and corporate liability in the climate context. Legal teams, policymakers, and corporate stakeholders should closely monitor these proceedings and evaluate their implications for regulatory compliance and strategic planning.

Jacob H. Zoghlin is a Partner in Underberg & Kessler LLP’s Litigation department and chairs the firm’s Environmental Law practice group and Municipal Law practice group. He focuses his practice in the areas of environmental law, municipal law, development law, energy law, zoning and land use law, cannabis law, Article 78 proceedings, and related litigation. He can be reached at jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com.

Reprinted with permission from The Daily Record and available as a PDF file here.