A federal judge struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act on Aug. 31, ruling that the state law is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. Chief U.S. District Judge of the Northern District of New York, Brenda K. Sannes, found the law preempted by the federal Clean Air Act and the federal foreign affairs power.
Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the law in 2024, modeling it on the federal Superfund program used to clean up industrial waste. It would have required large fossil fuel companies the state deemed responsible for climate change, including Chevron and Exxon Mobil, to pay a combined $75 billion into a climate change adaptation cost-recovery program, with payments spread over 25 years.
That money was intended to fund infrastructure upgrades helping the state withstand extreme weather linked to global warming, including flooding. Possible projects included resiliency efforts in flood-prone parts of New York City, such as Red Hook, the Rockaways and Lower Manhattan, amNY reported.
Sannes wrote that the law was an “unusual and sweeping statute” that fell “beyond the limits of state law” and was designed to address “a uniquely international problem of national concern.”
“Any cost recovery demand against a foreign producer would be preempted by the foreign affairs doctrine,” she added.
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 22 Republican-led states along with coal, oil and trade organizations. The Justice Department filed a statement of interest and argued in support of the plaintiffs.
The New York Times reported that Sannes relied heavily on a 2021 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissing a similar lawsuit by NYC against oil companies.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said the ruling marked “a significant step in advancing President Trump’s energy agenda.”
Ken Lovett, a senior adviser to Hochul on energy and environment, said taxpayers should not have to cover damages caused by polluters and that the state is reviewing its options.
State Sen. Liz Krueger, a sponsor of the law, called the ruling “unfortunate” and said she expected “many rounds of legal wrangling” before the law could take effect.
West Harlem Environmental Action co-founder Peggy Shepard told amNY the law would have funded infrastructure investments that disadvantaged communities like Harlem need to respond to climate threats.
Citizens Campaign for the Environment Executive Director Adrienne Esposito called the ruling “immensely disappointing and frightening,” arguing that New Yorkers are already paying for climate damage while responsible companies avoid it, according to amNY.
Neil Bradley, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was a plaintiff, said the court “sent a strong message to states” that the Constitution bars them from penalizing lawful business conduct to fill budget gaps.
The government has also filed a complaint against New York’s law in the Southern District of New York and Vermont’s Climate Superfund law in Vermont’s federal court. It remains unclear whether NY will appeal the decision, the New York Times reported.
Similar climate liability cases remain pending, including one brought by Boulder, Colorado, against Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil that the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in October. That case raises the same question Sannes faced: whether federal law bars state suits seeking damages for climate change effects.
