The Trump Administration has initiated a broad legal campaign against state-level legislative and judicial efforts aimed at combating climate change. Four separate lawsuits—targeting the enacted Climate Superfund Acts in New York and Vermont, and the planned climate-related litigation in Hawaii and Michigan—are grounded in the assertion that these state measures exceed constitutional authority, conflict with federal law, and interfere with interstate commerce and foreign affairs. This marks a new phase in the ongoing federal-state power struggle over environmental policy in the United States.

Increasing state-level environmental regulations—particularly laws seeking damages from fossil fuel companies and other legislation framed around climate action—have heightened tensions between state governments and the federal administration. Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken an active role in this conflict by filing lawsuits against the states of New York, Vermont, Hawaii, and Michigan in 2024 and 2025.

The Purpose of the Climate Superfund Acts and Federal Legal Challenge

The “Climate Superfund Acts” enacted in New York and Vermont aim to impose retroactive financial liability on fossil fuel producers for climate-related damages, based on the principle of polluter-pays. These laws seek to establish dedicated funds to address the economic and environmental consequences of climate change.

However, in lawsuits filed on May 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice argues that these state laws:

  • Conflict with the federal Clean Air Act, and should therefore be deemed preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government contends that the regulation and control of air pollution is an exclusively federal domain, and that the state laws in question unlawfully encroach on this jurisdiction.
  • Exceed the territorial reach of state legislative power, by attempting to regulate conduct beyond state borders.
  • Impede interstate commerce in a discriminatory manner, contrary to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
  • Interfere with the federal government’s authority over foreign affairs, by potentially affecting international energy and environmental policy.

Following the federal complaints, a coalition of 24 Republican state attorneys general filed motions to intervene in a pending lawsuit previously initiated by the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against Vermont’s law. Similarly, in February 2025, a coalition of 22 red states and four major industry groups launched a challenge to the New York statute, arguing that the state exceeded its constitutional powers.

Federal Action Against Climate Deception Litigation

The Trump Administration’s legal approach not only targets existing climate laws but also seeks to prevent future climate-related lawsuits from being filed by certain states.

Climate deception litigation aims to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for intentionally misrepresenting the risks of climate change and the contribution of their products to it. Hawaii and Michigan are among several states that have initiated or are considering initiating such legal actions.

On April 30, 2025, the Department of Justice filed lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan to prevent those states from bringing future legal actions against fossil fuel companies. These legal actions are positioned as preventative measures to halt state-level litigation concerning alleged misleading climate-related disclosures before such cases are formally brought.

Despite this pressure, the State of Hawaii did not relent and officially pressed forward with its lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry on May 1, 2025. The complaint alleges that the defendant companies have possessed scientific knowledge for decades regarding the devastating impact of fossil fuels on climate change, yet deliberately concealed this information from the public and misled them through deceptive statements. Hawaii seeks to hold these companies liable for negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, harm to public trust resources, unfair and deceptive acts or practices, and failure to warn.

Meanwhile, the State of Michigan has not yet initiated formal litigation but has publicly expressed its intention to pursue similar legal action and is currently engaged in legal advisory processes. The Michigan Attorney General has characterized the Department of Justice lawsuits brought by the Trump Administration against their state as unfounded and unwarranted.

The Department of Justice’s lawsuits clearly reflect the Trump Administration’s priorities as outlined in its recent Executive Order titled “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach.” This order directs the Attorney General to identify and stop the enforcement of any state or local laws, regulations, or policies that impose burdens on domestic energy resources.

The Executive Order specifically references the Climate Superfund laws enacted in New York and Vermont as prime examples of excessive climate legislation.

Therefore, the lawsuits filed by the Trump Administration have also sparked a new constitutional debate. While the Department of Justice argues that the state laws undermine federal energy policy and foreign affairs authority, the states contend that they are exercising their rights to protect the environment and public health.

The Trump Administration’s intervention targets not only existing laws but also seeks to deter other states from adopting similar regulations. However, state judicial authority encompasses broad discretionary powers to enact environmental protections within constitutional limits. The ultimate rulings by the courts on the scope of these powers will significantly shape the future of climate action as well as federal-state relations.