Highlights
- Numerous states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies, alleging that the companies should be held financially liable for the impacts of climate change in their jurisdictions.
- In line with the Trump Administration's executive order, "Protecting American Energy from State Overreach," the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed preemptive lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan attempting to thwart further lawsuits before they were filed.
- The DOJ also filed complaints against New York and Vermont over their "climate superfund laws."
In recent years, states and municipalities have attempted to hold fossil fuel companies liable for their alleged impacts on climate change. Numerous states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies, alleging that they should be held financially liable for the effects of climate change in their jurisdictions. States have also recently adopted "climate superfund" laws modeled after the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund") in order to hold companies accountable for environmental harm.
In line with the Trump Administration's April 8, 2025, executive order (EO), "Protecting American Energy from State Overreach," the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed preemptive lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan attempting to thwart further lawsuits before they were filed. (See Holland & Knight's previous alert, "President Trump Issues Executive Order Targeting State Climate Programs," April 11, 2025.) The DOJ also filed complaints against New York and Vermont over their "climate superfund laws."
Climate Change Lawsuits
Nine Democratic-led states and dozens of municipalities around the country, including San Francisco, New York, Baltimore, Honolulu and the Hawaiian island of Maui, have previously sued fossil fuel companies over climate change. These lawsuits allege that fossil fuel companies should be held liable for contributing to the costs associated with adaptation to climate change and damages caused by extreme weather events linked to global warming.
After Hawaii Gov. Josh Green stated that Hawaii intended to sue fossil fuel companies over the impacts of global warming, the Trump Administration preemptively sued the state of Hawaii on April 30, 2025, seeking to block the lawsuit before it was filed. The Trump Administration also filed a similar suit against Michigan after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer publicly stated that she was contemplating climate change litigation.
In these suits, the Trump Administration argues that the federal government should determine national energy policy, not individual states, in line with the arguments in the EO that state policies inhibiting the energy industry weaken national security and can drive up costs for American consumers.
Preemptive lawsuits attempting to block other lawsuits are unusual, and right now, it is unclear how the Trump Administration will frame its legal arguments or how those arguments will fare. Despite the DOJ's filing, Hawaii went ahead with its lawsuit against fossil fuel companies in state court, alleging that the companies engaged in deceptive conduct about climate change for decades. The lawsuit also pointed to the devastating 2023 Maui wildfires, flooding and beach erosion as evidence of the price being borne by Hawaii's residents.
Climate Superfund Laws
A different approach was recently taken in New York and Vermont, both of which adopted "climate superfund laws" intended to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change impacts. Though purportedly modeled on the federal Superfund statute, the laws are more akin to a tax than superfund-type liability because rather than address damage at a specific site, the statutes impose a fee on major emitters and direct expenditure of the revenue to climate adaptation projects.
The DOJ complaints allege that the New York Climate Change Superfund Act and Vermont Climate Superfund Act are preempted by the federal Clean Air Act and federal foreign affairs power, and that they violate the U.S. Constitution. The DOJ is seeking a declaration that these state laws are unconstitutional, as well as an injunction against their enforcement.
Ten other states are currently considering similar bills, including California, Maine, Oregon, Maryland, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Hawaii, New Jersey and Connecticut. Most of the bills mirror the New York and Vermont models by establishing state-managed funds to support climate adaptation projects financed by fees on fossil fuel producers. Many of the bills also require that a minimum portion of the funds go toward projects benefitting underserved or disadvantaged communities. California's Senate Bill 684 – the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 – is currently in the legislative process and, in addition to funding climate adaptation projects, would finance projects such as the development of renewable energy and zero-emission transportation infrastructure.
The energy industry is likely to challenge these efforts and potential new laws on multiple fronts. The state bills also seem to fall into the category of state actions called out in the EO, which directs the U.S. Attorney General to "identify all state and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices (collectively, State laws) burdening the identification, development, siting, production or use of domestic energy resources," and "prioritize the identification of any such State laws purporting to address 'climate change'," among other issues. Therefore, it is possible that the DOJ will not only act after laws are adopted but may try to influence the lawmaking process as well.
Holland & Knight will continue to evaluate the potential impacts of this action and track developments. If you have any questions, please contact the authors.
Trump's 2025 Executive Orders: Updates and Summaries
Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Group is actively monitoring and reviewing President Trump's executive orders and other actions. View a comprehensive tracking chart of executive order summaries on our website.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
