FEDERAL POWER PLAY: INSIDE THE DOJ’S UNPRECEDENTED LEGAL BATTLE AGAINST STATE CLIMATE INITIATIVES

By Lucas Novak, Energy Policy Correspondent
May 5, 2025

A Constitutional Showdown: Federal Authority vs. State Climate Action

In a dramatic escalation of tensions between federal and state governments over energy and climate policy, the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has launched an unprecedented legal offensive against four Democratic-led states. The federal lawsuits, filed last week against Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Vermont, represent one of the most aggressive assertions of federal authority over state-level environmental initiatives in recent memory and signal the Trump administration’s determination to protect fossil fuel interests from what it characterizes as overreaching state regulation.

The legal actions, initiated under the directive of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14260, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” target two distinct categories of state climate initiatives. The suits against Hawaii and Michigan seek to preemptively block those states from filing planned lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for climate change-related damages. Meanwhile, the actions against New York and Vermont challenge recently enacted “climate superfund” laws that require fossil fuel companies to pay into state-based funds to address the costs of climate impacts.

“These burdensome and ideologically motivated laws and lawsuits threaten American energy independence and our country’s economic and national security,” declared Attorney General Bondi in the DOJ’s announcement. The statement emphasized that the department is working to “unleash American energy” by eliminating what it describes as “illegitimate impediments to the production of affordable, reliable energy that Americans deserve.”

The Legal Battleground: Four States in the Crosshairs

The lawsuits represent two distinct approaches to the same objective: preventing states from holding fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate impacts. Each case offers a window into the administration’s broader strategy for prioritizing energy production over climate concerns.

Hawaii & Michigan: Preventing Climate Litigation

The complaints filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Hawaii and the Western District of Michigan aim to prevent these states from pursuing planned legal action against fossil fuel companies. According to court documents, the federal government argues that such lawsuits constitute an “extraordinary extraterritorial reach” that undermines federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The timing of the federal action against Hawaii proved particularly noteworthy, as the state proceeded to file its lawsuit against seven groups of fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute on the same day the DOJ filed its preemptive challenge. Hawaii Governor Josh Green has explicitly linked the state’s climate litigation to the devastating 2023 Lahaina wildfire, arguing that fossil fuel companies should “take responsibility for their role in the state’s climate impacts.”

Michigan, which has not yet filed its anticipated lawsuit, responded defiantly to the federal action. Attorney General Dana Nessel characterized the DOJ’s lawsuit as “at best frivolous and arguably sanctionable,” adding that “the White House and the oil industry will not succeed in any attempt to preemptively bar our access to make our claims in the courts.”

New York & Vermont: Challenging “Climate Superfund” Laws

The second pair of lawsuits targets recently enacted state laws modeled after the 45-year-old federal Superfund law, which was designed to address hazardous waste sites. New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act seeks to raise $75 billion from fossil fuel companies based on their historical greenhouse gas emissions, while Vermont’s similar legislation has not yet specified a target amount.

The DOJ has characterized these laws as “a transparent monetary-extraction scheme” designed to fund state infrastructure projects with money from out-of-state businesses. The federal complaints argue that by imposing strict liability on energy companies for their worldwide activities extracting or refining fossil fuels, these state laws infringe on federal authority to regulate interstate commerce and conduct foreign policy.

State officials have defended their laws as necessary measures to ensure that corporations responsible for climate change bear the financial burden of addressing its impacts. A spokesperson for New York Governor Kathy Hochul stated that the governor “believes corporate polluters should pay for the damage done to our environment—not everyday New Yorkers.”

The Constitutional Questions: Federal Preemption and States’ Rights

At the heart of these lawsuits lie fundamental questions about the balance of power between federal and state governments in addressing environmental challenges. The DOJ’s legal arguments revolve around several key constitutional principles:

Federal Preemption Under the Clean Air Act

The DOJ contends that the Clean Air Act “displaces the ability of States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions beyond their borders.” This argument invokes the constitutional principle of federal preemption, which holds that federal law takes precedence over state law when the two conflict.

Legal experts note that this represents a somewhat contradictory position for the administration, which has simultaneously directed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to work toward overturning the agency’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare—the very finding that establishes federal authority to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act.

“On the one hand the U.S. is saying Michigan, and other states, can’t regulate greenhouse gases because the Clean Air Act does so and therefore preempts states from regulating,” observed UCLA environmental law professor Ann Carlson. “On the other hand, they’re trying to undo the Clean Air Act’s application to greenhouse gases.”

The Commerce Clause and Foreign Affairs Power

Beyond preemption arguments, the DOJ contends that state climate initiatives violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause by imposing burdens on interstate commerce. The complaints further assert that state actions intrude upon the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs, arguing that state climate policies could undermine the administration’s international energy objectives.

“When states seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authority, they harm the country’s ability to produce energy and they aid our adversaries,” stated Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

A Significant Departure: The Unprecedented Nature of the Federal Challenge

Legal experts have characterized the DOJ’s approach—particularly its attempt to preemptively block state lawsuits that haven’t yet been filed—as extraordinary and potentially unprecedented in the context of environmental litigation.

“What we expected is they would intervene in the pending lawsuits, not to try to preempt or prevent a lawsuit from being filed,” noted one environmental law expert. “It’s an aggressive move in support of the fossil fuel industry.”

The DOJ’s approach represents a significant expansion of federal efforts to curtail state-level climate initiatives. While previous administrations have challenged state environmental actions through regulatory rollbacks or interventions in existing litigation, the preemptive nature of the current lawsuits signals a more aggressive posture toward state autonomy in climate policy.

The Political Context: Energy Policy Under the Second Trump Administration

The lawsuits emerge against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s broader energy agenda, which has prioritized fossil fuel production and sought to eliminate regulatory barriers to domestic energy development. The president’s recent executive order directing Attorney General Bondi to “take action to stop the enforcement of state laws that unreasonably burden domestic energy development” provides the explicit policy framework for the DOJ’s actions.

From a political perspective, the lawsuits serve multiple purposes for the administration. They demonstrate the president’s commitment to campaign promises regarding energy production and signal strong support for the fossil fuel industry. They also create a vehicle for challenging state climate initiatives that the administration views as economically harmful and ideologically driven.

Critics argue that the lawsuits represent an unprecedented overreach of federal power and a departure from traditional Republican support for states’ rights. Defenders counter that the administration is properly asserting federal authority over matters that impact national energy security and interstate commerce.

State Resistance: The Response from Democratic Officials

The targeted states have uniformly rejected the federal government’s characterization of their climate initiatives and expressed determination to defend their policies in court. Their responses highlight the deeply polarized nature of climate policy in America today.

“Governor Hochul proudly signed the Climate Superfund Act because she believes corporate polluters should pay for the damage done to our environment—not everyday New Yorkers,” stated a spokesperson for the New York governor. “We will not back down, not from Big Oil, and not from federal overreach.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel took an even more confrontational tone, suggesting the federal lawsuit could be sanctionable and declaring, “I remain undeterred in my intention to file this lawsuit the President and his Big Oil donors so fear.”

Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark simply stated, “I’m always proud to represent Vermont and I look forward to doing so in this case.”

The Broader Context: Climate Litigation Across America

The DOJ lawsuits represent just one front in a much broader legal battle over climate change responsibility playing out in courts across the country. Numerous cities, counties, and states have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies in recent years, seeking compensation for climate-related damages and alleging that the industry misled the public about the climate risks associated with their products.

These cases have generally proceeded through state courts, with fossil fuel defendants repeatedly attempting to move them to federal jurisdiction, where they believe they face better prospects. The companies have generally argued that federal common law should govern climate claims and that state-law claims are preempted by federal statutes like the Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court has not definitively resolved these jurisdictional questions, leaving considerable uncertainty about the proper forum for climate litigation. The DOJ’s current lawsuits add another layer of complexity to this already contested legal landscape.

Industry Impact: Implications for Energy Companies

For fossil fuel companies, the DOJ’s legal intervention represents a significant reinforcement of their own legal arguments against state climate initiatives. The federal government’s assertion that the Clean Air Act preempts state-level regulation of greenhouse gas emissions mirrors arguments that energy companies themselves have made in defending against climate lawsuits.

The lawsuits may provide temporary relief for energy companies facing potential liability under state climate initiatives. However, they also intensify public attention on the industry’s role in climate change and its resistance to financial accountability for environmental impacts.

Industry analysts note that regardless of the immediate legal outcomes, the lawsuits highlight the growing political and regulatory risks facing fossil fuel companies as climate concerns mount and legal strategies evolve. Even if the federal government succeeds in blocking the current wave of state initiatives, future administrations could reverse course, potentially leaving companies vulnerable to renewed legal challenges.

Constitutional Significance: Testing the Limits of Federalism

Beyond their immediate implications for energy policy, the DOJ lawsuits represent a significant test of federalism principles—the constitutional balance between federal and state authority. The cases raise fundamental questions about the proper allocation of power in addressing environmental challenges that transcend state boundaries but manifest in locally specific impacts.

Constitutional scholars point out that environmental regulation has traditionally involved cooperation between federal and state governments, with federal laws establishing minimum standards and states often maintaining authority to impose stricter requirements. The Trump administration’s assertion of exclusive federal authority over climate policy challenges this cooperative model.

The cases also highlight tensions in conservative legal philosophy between support for states’ rights and deference to federal authority. Traditional conservative jurisprudence has often favored limiting federal power and preserving state autonomy, particularly in areas of traditional state concern like public health and safety. The DOJ’s aggressive assertion of federal preemption in these cases represents a departure from this approach in service of the administration’s energy priorities.

The Path Forward: Potential Outcomes and Implications

As these cases proceed through the federal courts, several potential outcomes emerge. The courts could uphold federal preemption, effectively blocking state climate initiatives and establishing a precedent limiting state authority in this area. Alternatively, they could reject the DOJ’s arguments, allowing states to proceed with both litigation and implementation of climate superfund laws.

A more nuanced outcome might involve distinguishing between different types of state action, perhaps finding that certain aspects of state climate initiatives intrude on federal authority while others remain within state power. The courts might also address the unprecedented nature of the DOJ’s preemptive lawsuits, potentially establishing new precedent regarding when the federal government can block state court proceedings before they begin.

Whatever the outcome, the cases will likely advance to appellate courts and potentially the Supreme Court, given their constitutional significance and the high political stakes involved. A Supreme Court ruling could reshape the landscape of climate litigation and state environmental regulation for decades to come.

A Test of Democratic Principles: The Deeper Significance

Beyond their legal and policy implications, these cases represent a test of democratic principles in addressing one of the most consequential challenges of our time. They raise profound questions about which level of government—federal, state, or local—should have primary authority over climate policy, and about the role of courts in allocating responsibility for climate impacts.

The tension between national uniformity and local experimentation in policy—a perennial theme in American governance—takes on particular urgency in the climate context, where global challenges manifest in locally specific impacts and where political polarization has prevented consistent national action.

As the legal battle unfolds, it will reveal much about how our constitutional system balances competing values: energy security versus environmental protection, economic development versus climate responsibility, federal uniformity versus state innovation. The outcome will shape not just climate policy but our understanding of American federalism in the face of 21st-century challenges.

Lucas Novak is an energy policy correspondent specializing in the intersection of legal, political, and environmental issues affecting the energy sector. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of this publication.