Climate Change Superfund Act struck down in federal court
On Aug. 31, 2026, Chief Judge Brenda Sannes of the Northern District of New York granted summary judgment against the Climate Change Superfund Act (S.2129-B/A.3351-B), which Hochul signed Dec. 26, 2024 to collect roughly $75 billion over 25 years from major fossil-fuel companies for climate-adaptation costs. The court held the law is preempted because it regulates in an area of dominant federal interest (the Clean Air Act), relying on the 2nd Circuit's 2021 City of New York v. Chevron decision, and found the state's cost-recovery scheme "not distinguishable" from the city's failed claims. Plaintiffs were 22 Republican-led states (West Virginia v. James), the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of New York State. Hochul said Sept. 1 the state is "looking" at "options of appeal"; her energy adviser Ken Lovett said taxpayers should not foot polluters' bill and the decision is under review. Sponsor Sen. Liz Krueger wants AG James to appeal to the 2nd Circuit. Still pending: a separate DOJ suit in S.D.N.Y., a Vermont case on that state's parallel law, and the Supreme Court's October argument in Suncor v. Boulder County on the same preemption question. Accountability watch: whether the state files a notice of appeal, and what replaces the $75B in the state's resilience math if it loses. Next date: the court directed the parties to file a status report on further proceedings by Sept. 14, 2026 (West Virginia v. James, No. 1:25-cv-00168, consolidated with Chamber of Commerce v. James). As of Sept. 5 no notice of appeal has been reported.
The case on each side
Hochul, Sen. Krueger, Assemblyman Dinowitz, NYPIRG and Environmental Advocates NY say the polluter-pays model is sound, that the ruling should be appealed, and that without it New York taxpayers absorb roughly $75B in resilience costs the law assigned to fossil-fuel companies.
The 22 plaintiff states, API, the U.S. Chamber, the Business Council of NYS and Upstate United call the law an unconstitutional overreach into federal climate policy that would have raised fuel and electricity costs; DOJ says the ruling enforces Trump's April 2025 order against state "overreach."