{"id":1038958,"date":"2026-09-02T13:59:43","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T13:59:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/1038958\/"},"modified":"2026-09-02T13:59:43","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T13:59:43","slug":"judge-strikes-down-new-yorks-climate-change-superfund-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/1038958\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge strikes down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

A federal judge has struck down New York\u2019s Climate Change Superfund Act<\/a>, ruling that it is \u201csimply beyond the limits of state law.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ruling stems from a federal lawsuit that more than 20 states filed against New York in February 2025 challenging the constitutionality of the Climate Change Superfund Act, which established regulations seeking to collect roughly $75 billion from companies \u2014 some controlled by foreign nations \u2014 deemed responsible for greenhouse gas emissions due to their refinement and production of fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes stopped short of declaring the statute is unconstitutional, but ruled that it is preempted by federal law and cannot be legally enforced.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn seeking damages \u2018for the cumulative impact\u2019 of conduct that has occurred \u2018simultaneously across just about every jurisdiction on the planet,\u2019 the Climate Act conflicts with \u2018the overriding \u2026 need for a uniform rule of decision\u2019 on matters influencing national energy and environmental policy, and \u2018basic interests of federalism,\u2019\u201d Sannes wrote in a 63-page decision.<\/p>\n

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose state is one of the plaintiffs in the case, had last year called the law \u201cnothing more than an unconstitutional shakedown of vital American energy industries that form the bedrock of our national economic independence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Concerns<\/p>\n

The legislation was signed into law at the end of December 2024 by Gov. Kathy Hochul, over the objections of a coalition of business, energy and labor organizations aligned with the Business Council of New York State, which had asked the governor to veto the bill.<\/p>\n

It had been stripped from the state budget in 2024 but passed by the state Senate that May and the Assembly a month later.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis decision underscores the concerns we have continued to raise surrounding New York\u2019s Climate Change Superfund Act,\u201d said Heather Mulligan, president and CEO of the Business Council of New York State. \u201cWhile we certainly support efforts to improve our state\u2019s climate and environment, it\u2019s equally important that those policies are both sound and recognize the impact on businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n

The federal lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Albany by attorneys generals from Alabama,\u00a0Arkanas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Several industry groups, including the West Virginia Coal Association, Alpha Metallurgical Resources, and the Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia, are also parties to the litigation.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit was filed against state Attorney General Letitia James, Department of Environmental Conservation interim Commissioner Sean Mahar, who is now a regional director with the agency, and acting Department of Taxation and Finance Commissioner Amanda Hiller. In the ruling this week, Sannes dismissed the case against Hiller but also denied the state\u2019s request for summary judgment on the merits of their arguments.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Department of Justice\u00a0joined the legal battle last September<\/a>, asking a judge to declare\u00a0that New York\u2019s Climate Change\u00a0Superfund Act is unconstitutional, and asserting that the legislation is a \u201clawless overreach\u201d and that the federal government\u2019s motion for summary judgment in the case should be granted.<\/p>\n

Blaming game <\/p>\n

\"AStudents and advocates gathered at the Capitol pushing for the Legislature to pass the Climate Change Superfund Act. A federal judge has struck down the statute. Photo by Molly Burke\/Times Union<\/p>\n

A similar lawsuit filed by the administration of President Donald J. Trump has targeted similar legislation in Vermont.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe state of New York believes it can seize control over the makeup of America\u2019s energy industry,\u201d the 76-page complaint filed by the 20 states had asserted. \u201cIn an unprecedented effort, New York has set out to impose tens of billions of dollars of liability on traditional energy producers disfavored by certain New York politicians.\u201d<\/p>\n

The superfund act tasked the state Department of Environmental Conservation with establishing regulations to identify \u201cresponsible parties\u201d and the procedures for collecting payments from those companies after issuing notices of cost recovery demands. Although the state attorney general\u2019s office and Department of Taxation and Finance would be given authority to enforce the payment demands, it\u2019s unclear how that would work, including if the targets are in Russia or other nations at odds with U.S. interests.<\/p>\n

The coalition supported by the Business Council characterized the legislation as \u201cbad public policy\u201d in a letter they sent to Hochul two years ago. The letter noted there were significant questions about the implementation of the regulations, whether they would meet constitutional muster, and the potential for \u201cunintended consequences and increased costs for households and businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n

The group said that the legislation also ignored the direct culprit for carbon emissions \u2014 consumers \u2014 and was discriminatory because it targeted only the largest fossil fuel extraction and processing firms, including those that produce petroleum, natural gas and coal.<\/p>\n

State and federal lawmakers who supported the legislation have taken varied positions on fossil fuels. Under former\u00a0Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the state created the \u201cFUEL NY\u201d initiative in\u00a0response to\u00a0Superstorm Sandy in 2012, a catastrophic event that created extensive power outages and disruptions to fuel supply systems. That initiative, which remains in place, notes that New York \u201crelies on the continuous availability and resupply of gasoline and diesel fuel to maintain public safety, commerce, and the well-being and economic vitality of its residents, businesses, and governments.\u201d<\/p>\n

Assessment list <\/p>\n

The FUEL NY plan sought to mitigate disruptions in fuel distribution and establish two fuel reserves, as well as a back-up generator program for gas stations in strategic locations, to make it easier for New Yorkers to resume \u201cdaily life\u201d following a severe storm.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, state government is proposing to penalize the very same suppliers of gasoline, natural gas, and other fossil fuel-based products,\u201d the business coalition group wrote. \u201cBy targeting and imposing strict liability only on the extraction and refinement of fossil fuels, the bill disregards the fact that most emissions are generated by the actual use of fossil fuels and not by their refinement or extraction. Imposing a fee on this past activity means is not designed to impact business or consumer behavior, suggesting the main goal of the legislation is to receive funding from the fuels sector.\u201d<\/p>\n

A memo circulated in the Legislature three years ago by state Sen. Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowtiz, a Bronx Democrat, cited a \u201cpeer-reviewed\u201d article that they said ranked a list of violators and helped establish the amount of money they should pay New York. The article analyzed global emissions since 2000 and based the penalties on each company\u2019s annual assessment, and placed \u201cthe burden of the damages caused on the manufacturer, not the users, even if the substance was legally produced and emitted at the time the harm was caused.\u201d<\/p>\n

That annual assessment list ranged from $222 million for Exxon Mobil to $100 million for\u00a0Lukoil in Russia and $23 million for Novatek, an oil and gas company that is Russia\u2019s second-largest producer of natural gas. There were also more than a dozen U.S. companies on the bill\u2019s list.<\/p>\n

The legislation entitled a fossil fuel company to contest any financial assessments \u201cconsistent with due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the lawsuit filed in federal court against New York asserted the law ran afoul of the Constitution and the federal Clean Air Act, which regulates emissions across state lines.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Where it leaves New Yorkers<\/p>\n

Krueger, in a statement issued Tuesday morning, criticized Sannes\u2019 ruling and noted, \u201cI have always said that there would be many rounds of legal wrangling before the Climate Change\u00a0Superfund (Act) could begin to provide relief for New Yorkers.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is unfortunate that Judge Sannes failed to recognize the clear distinction between a tort lawsuit, which was at issue in the New York City v Chevron decision, and a state Legislature exercising its constitutional powers to raise revenues and protect its citizen,\u201d Krueger said. \u201cRegardless, this case will now move up to the 2nd Circuit, where a new panel of judges will have the opportunity to acknowledge the difference between this case and Chevron, or, failing that, to revisit the Chevron decision, which has been widely criticized on both the left and the right.\u201d<\/p>\n

Krueger was referring to a case in which New York City sued five multinational oil companies under state tort law alleging public and private nuisance and trespass as a result of pollution. That lawsuit, which was dismissed in a unanimous decision by the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, sought billions of dollars to pay for sea-walls and other infrastructure improvements, including a new sewer system, to deal with storm events. The city argued fossil fuel producers were responsible for global warming.
\u00a0
Blair Horner, executive director of New York Public Interest Research Group, had pushed back on the Business Council during the legislative wrangling over the Climate Superfund Act, claiming the organization would rather have \u201ctaxpayers and small business owners pick up the entire tab for climate destruction, instead of the wealthy fossil fuel companies who knew they were causing climate change for decades and did nothing to change course.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a statement issued late Monday, Horner that \u201cthe damages caused by the worsening climate are hammering (New Yorkers\u2019) wallets and unless this decision is reversed, they will face higher taxes or reduced public services\u00a0\u2014 or both\u00a0\u2014 to the tune of $75 billion.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNYPIRG urges New York State Attorney General Letitia James to file an appeal, not only to protect the public\u2019s health and wellbeing, but to protect taxpayers too,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A federal judge has struck down New York\u2019s Climate Change Superfund Act, ruling that it is \u201csimply beyond…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1038959,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5122],"tags":[5229,285,454,405,403,5226,5225,5228,5227,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-1038958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-york","tag-america","tag-climate-change","tag-government","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-city","tag-newyork","tag-newyorkcity","tag-ny","tag-nyc","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/117201809395194979","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1038958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1038958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1038958\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1038959"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1038958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1038958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1038958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}