The Trump Administration's Actions Against State Climate Laws and Lawsuits
President Trump's April 2025 executive order, "Protecting American Energy From State Overreach," targeted state and local measures that potentially impact domestic energy development. In the months since, the United States has moved to blunt state climate initiatives on multiple fronts. The federal government sued Michigan and Hawaii, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to preempt state lawsuits against traditional energy companies for alleged climate harms. The lawsuits were in response to the states' announcements about plans to file such climate change litigation. The executive order has also spurred federal challenges to New York and Vermont "climate superfund" statutes that would impose monetary liability on traditional energy producers for greenhouse gas emissions.
In the Michigan case, the United States plead several theories, including Clean Air Act ("CAA") preemption, extraterritorial regulation, dormant Commerce Clause, Foreign Commerce Clause, and foreign affairs preemption. Michigan has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on ripeness grounds, arguing that federal courts cannot adjudicate a pre-enforcement challenge to a lawsuit that has not been filed. On September 29, 2025, the federal government responded that no filed case is required and that a "credible threat of enforcement" suffices. Michigan has not independently advanced a state suit—at least pending a ruling on current motions for ripeness—leaving the federal government's lawsuit to test whether preemption and federal interests can foreclose anticipated state litigation.
The United States brought the same theories against Hawaii. Hawaii answered on June 30, 2025, and moved for judgment on the pleadings. At the end of September, the federal government opposed, contending that it has standing, that equitable relief is available, and that the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is inapplicable when the United States is the plaintiff.
Unlike Michigan, Hawaii filed an underlying action on May 1, 2025, asserting claims such as negligence, public nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, and civil aiding and abetting against traditional energy defendants. Defendants moved to stay, and in August, the case was vacated and will be reset once the stay is lifted.
Regarding the challenges to the state climate superfund laws, in the New York case, the United States has moved for summary judgment, with briefing to be completed by November 19, 2025. On September 15, 2025, the government filed for summary judgment against Vermont's law as well.
Given the credible‑threat and ripeness theories now being litigated, these cases have potentially far‑reaching consequences for traditional energy companies. On one path, robust findings of CAA preemption, the Commerce Clause, or foreign‑affairs preemption could furnish a de facto nationwide federal shield against state climate torts and "climate superfund" recovery schemes that seek to regulate emissions. On the other path, if states prevail—particularly in New York and Vermont—traditional energy producers could face retroactive exposure untethered to federal permitting.
The pending summary judgment motions in the climate superfund cases—and threshold rulings in the Michigan and Hawaii preemption suits—will determine whether traditional energy companies face a fragmented patchwork of state liability and potential retroactive assessments, or whether a federal preemption shield curtails those efforts. Either outcome will affect litigation risk and strategy across the energy value chain.
Even when the federal government is not directly litigating limitations on climate-related claims against participants in the traditional energy space, it has nonetheless advocated for traditional energy sources. The United States filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review two major energy companies' petition seeking to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court decision that allowed Boulder County and the City of Boulder's climate tort claims to proceed against the energy companies. In its brief, the United States alleges that Boulder's lawsuit "improperly seeks to apply Colorado law to the companies' worldwide fossil fuel activities," exceeding state authority, and warns that allowing such suits could expose energy companies to "billions of dollars in damages" and "a multiplicity of rules governing their conduct in any given location."
In its attempt to promote traditional energy sources, the Trump administration is consistently fighting measures by state and local governments trying to regulate traditional energy companies, and while the current policies may not continue into a future administration, the precedent created from these cases may have long-lasting effects.
