Fossil-fuel trade groups and 22 states, backed by the U.S. Department of Justice, sued New York in federal court over its Climate Change Superfund Act. They argue that federal law preempts the Act, which sought $75B from major fossil-fuel companies for past emissions. On August 31, 2026, the court struck down the Act, and the parties have jointly asked for final judgment to expedite New York’s appeal.
Latest development Sep 14, 2026
On September 14, 2026, New York and the challengers jointly asked the court to enter final judgment so New York can pursue an expedited appeal to the Second Circuit. The request followed the court’s August 31, 2026, ruling striking down the Act. New York has not yet filed a notice of appeal.
Why it matters
An expedited appeal to the Second Circuit will test whether federal law bars states from making fossil-fuel companies pay for past greenhouse-gas emissions. The answer will shape Vermont’s parallel superfund law and similar bills pending in other state legislatures.
Background
In December 2024, New York enacted the Climate Change Superfund Act. The Act created a Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program that sought to require large fossil-fuel companies to pay a combined $75B over 25 years. The payments covered greenhouse-gas emissions dating back decades, including emissions tied to conduct outside New York and the United States. Vermont adopted a similar law around the same time, and both statutes drew immediate legal challenges.
On February 6, 2025, West Virginia and 21 other states, joined by coal, mining, and oil-and-gas trade associations, sued New York officials. They filed West Virginia v. James, No. 1:25-cv-00168, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. A second coalition, led by the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the Business Council of New York State, sued separately. It filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was later transferred to the Northern District of New York and docketed as Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. James, No. 1:25-cv-01307.
On October 20, 2025, the court consolidated the two cases, with West Virginia v. James as the lead case. Both complaints argued that the Clean Air Act preempts the Act. They also argued that it violates the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Takings Clause. They further argued that the Act intrudes on the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs because it reaches emissions from foreign production. The Trump administration’s Department of Justice separately sued New York and Vermont and filed a statement of interest backing the challengers in the consolidated case. The court denied a motion by environmental groups to intervene in support of the Act.
On July 30, 2026, the court heard oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment. On August 31, 2026, Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and struck down the Act. She held that the Clean Air Act preempts state regulation of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions and that the Act’s reach into foreign production conflicts with the federal foreign affairs power. She also held that the law is functionally indistinguishable from the public-nuisance claims in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had rejected those claims. On September 14, 2026, the parties jointly asked the court to enter final judgment so New York can pursue an expedited appeal to the Second Circuit. New York has not yet filed a notice of appeal.
Timeline 10 events
-
OrderParties jointly seek final judgment to expedite appeal
New York and the challengers asked the district court to enter final judgment so New York can pursue an expedited appeal to the Second Circuit.
Federal Court Strikes Down New York's Climate Change Superfund Act
-
JudgmentChief Judge Sannes strikes down the Climate Change Superfund Act
The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. It held the Act preempted by the Clean Air Act and the federal foreign affairs power, and inconsistent with City of New York v. Chevron Corp.
Judge Rules Against NY Over State’s Climate Superfund LawNew York Judge Blocks State of New York's Unconstitutional Climate Superfund Act
-
HearingCourt hears argument on cross-motions for summary judgment
Chief Judge Sannes heard oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and related motions to strike.
-
OrderDistrict court denies intervention by environmental groups
Chief Judge Sannes adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the environmental nonprofits’ motion to intervene in defense of the Act.
-
OrderCourt consolidates the two New York challenges
West Virginia v. James and Chamber of Commerce v. James were consolidated in the Northern District of New York, with West Virginia v. James as the lead case.
-
OrderMagistrate judge recommends denying environmental groups’ bid to intervene
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart issued a Report-Recommendation against permissive intervention by environmental nonprofits seeking to defend the Act.
Case 1:25-cv-00168-BKS-DJS Document 220 (Order Denying Motion to Intervene)
-
FilingDOJ sues New York and Vermont over their superfund laws
The Justice Department filed its own suits against New York’s and Vermont’s climate superfund statutes, following an April 8, 2025, executive order targeting the laws.
Trump Administration Sues New York and Vermont Over Climate Superfund Legislation
-
FilingWest Virginia leads 22-state coalition suit against the Act
West Virginia and 21 other states, joined by coal and energy trade associations, filed West Virginia v. James in the Northern District of New York.
-
FilingAPI and U.S. Chamber file parallel suit in Southern District
The American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Mining Association, and Business Council of New York State filed Chamber of Commerce v. James. The case was later transferred to the Northern District of New York.
The Legal Battle Over Climate Superfund Laws: Vermont and New YorkChamber of Commerce v. James
-
OtherGovernor Hochul signs New York Climate Change Superfund Act
The law created a Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program seeking $75B over 25 years from major fossil-fuel companies for past greenhouse-gas emissions.
New York sued by 22 US states over $75 billion climate superfund
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the Second Circuit rule on New York’s appeal of the judgment striking down the Climate Change Superfund Act by March 31, 2028?
- Second Circuit affirms, Act stays void58%
- Still pending on March 31, 202825%
- Second Circuit revives New York’s Act8%
- Second Circuit affirms in part6%
- New York drops or loses appeal unheard3%
- Resolves by
- Mar 31, 2028in 18 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Second Circuit is most likely to affirm the judgment voiding New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act by March 31, 2028 (58%). The district court tied the Act to City of New York v. Chevron Corp., the Second Circuit’s own precedent rejecting state-law liability for global emissions. That makes reversal a long shot.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first Second Circuit merits decision in New York’s appeal from the N.D.N.Y. judgment in West Virginia v. James (consolidated with Chamber of Commerce v. James), as shown on the Second Circuit docket or in its published opinion. “Affirms” means the judgment invalidating the Act is upheld in full, on any ground. “Reverses or vacates” means the judgment is reversed or vacated in full, including remand for further proceedings. “Mixed” means affirmed in part and reversed or vacated in part. “Appeal dropped” means New York does not appeal, voluntarily dismisses its appeal, or the appeal is dismissed without a merits ruling. “Still pending” applies if none of these has occurred by March 31, 2028.
Reasoning
Starting point. Federal civil appeals from summary judgments invalidating state statutes on preemption grounds, decided by U.S. courts of appeals: Federal courts of appeals reverse roughly 10% to 15% of civil judgments. Expedited Second Circuit appeals usually reach decision within about 9 to 15 months of the notice of appeal.
Federal appellate courts affirm most civil judgments, with reversal rates near 10% to 15%, and the Second Circuit starts here from a precedent that favors the challengers. Chief Judge Sannes relied on City of New York v. Chevron Corp., where the Second Circuit held that federal law displaces state-law claims over global emissions. She also found separate grounds in the Clean Air Act and the federal foreign affairs power, so New York must defeat several holdings to win a full reversal. New York’s best argument is that a statute imposing cost-recovery payments differs from the nuisance suit in Chevron, and that question is novel enough to allow a partial ruling or remand. The United States backs the challengers, which removes any federal support for New York’s position. Timing is the main uncertainty. The parties jointly sought final judgment to speed an appeal, but briefing, argument, and opinion drafting in a case of this scope can still run past 18 months. The leading alternative to affirmance is therefore that the appeal is still pending on March 31, 2028. A New York withdrawal is unlikely given its stated plan to appeal.
Second Circuit precedent in City of New York v. Chevron Corp · Multiple independent grounds for the district court’s judgment · Parties’ joint push for expedited appellate review · Novelty of a statutory cost-recovery scheme versus nuisance claims · Federal government support for the challengers
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 26, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made