Fossil-fuel trade groups and 22 states sued New York officials in federal court, alleging that federal law preempts the state’s $75B Climate Change Superfund Act. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York struck down the Act, and a separate federal court enjoined it in a Justice Department suit. On October 23, 2026, New York appealed both rulings to the Second Circuit.
Latest development Oct 23, 2026
On October 23, 2026, the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeals challenge rulings by the Northern District of New York and the Southern District of New York that federal law preempts the Climate Change Superfund Act.
Why it matters
The Second Circuit appeal will test whether federal law bars states from making fossil-fuel companies pay for past greenhouse-gas emissions. The answer will affect 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 13 events
-
AppealNew York appeals preemption rulings to Second Circuit
The appeals challenge rulings by the Northern District of New York and the Southern District of New York that federal law preempts the Climate Change Superfund Act.
West Virginia v. James - The Climate Litigation Database (docket)New York appeals federal court rulings blocking climate superfund lawNY will appeal federal rulings striking down Climate Change Superfund Act
-
JudgmentNorthern District enters Rule 54(b) judgment against Climate Superfund Act
Chief Judge Sannes entered a partial final judgment implementing her August 31 decision. It enjoined Attorney General Letitia James and Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Amanda Lefton from enforcing the Act and permitted an immediate appeal of the preemption rulings.
-
JudgmentSDNY court strikes down Climate Superfund Act in DOJ suit
Judge P. Kevin Castel granted summary judgment for the United States in United States v. New York. He held the Act preempted by the Clean Air Act and the federal foreign affairs power and permanently enjoined its enforcement.
Second Decision to Block New York Climate Change Superfund Act IssuedSecond Federal Court Strikes Down New York's Climate Change Superfund ActFederal Judge Deals Another Blow to New York's $75 Billion Climate Superfund Law
-
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
The Northern District of New York consolidated West Virginia v. James and Chamber of Commerce v. James, 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 void60%
- Still pending on March 31, 202823%
- Second Circuit revives New York’s Act8%
- Second Circuit affirms in part6%
- New York’s appeal dropped or dismissed3%
- Resolves by
- Mar 31, 2028in 17 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Second Circuit is most likely to affirm the judgment striking down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act by March 31, 2028 (60%). The strongest reason is the court’s own 2021 ruling in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., which the district court found functionally indistinguishable from the Act.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first Second Circuit panel decision on New York’s appeal of the Northern District of New York’s September 24, 2026, judgment in West Virginia v. James (consolidated with Chamber of Commerce v. James). “Affirms” means the judgment and injunction stand in full, on any ground. “Revives” means the court reverses or vacates the judgment so that no part of the injunction against the Act remains. “Affirms in part” means the court leaves the injunction standing in part but reverses, vacates, or narrows it in part, or remands any preemption claim. “Dropped or dismissed” means the appeal ends without a merits decision, by voluntary withdrawal, settlement, or dismissal. “Still pending” means none of these has occurred by March 31, 2028. Later en banc or Supreme Court action does not change the resolution.
Reasoning
Starting point. Federal courts of appeals reviewing summary judgments that hold state laws preempted, especially where binding circuit precedent supports the ruling.: Federal courts of appeals reverse roughly 10% to 15% of civil judgments. Second Circuit civil appeals typically take about 12 to 15 months from notice of appeal to decision.
The base rate for reversal of civil judgments in federal appeals courts is roughly 10% to 15%. This appeal starts below that figure because the district court relied heavily on the Second Circuit’s own City of New York v. Chevron Corp. precedent. A second federal court, in the separate Justice Department suit, reached the same preemption result on September 23, 2026, so New York faces two adverse judgments on overlapping grounds. New York’s best argument is that a payment statute differs from the tort liability rejected in City of New York, which keeps a reversal or partial reversal plausible. The leading alternative is that the appeal is still undecided on March 31, 2028. That is about 17 months after the October 23, 2026, notices of appeal, near or beyond the typical disposition time. The parties’ joint push for an expedited appeal and New York’s prompt filing cut that risk somewhat. New York is unlikely to abandon the appeal given the statute’s policy weight and Vermont’s parallel law. No outcome moved by five points or more since the October 4 forecast. The filing of the notices of appeal modestly shifted weight from pending to affirmance.
Second Circuit precedent in City of New York v. Chevron · Two independent district court judgments on preemption · Expedited appeal request shortens likely timeline · Act reaches foreign emissions, raising foreign affairs concerns · Possible coordinated hearing with the Justice Department suit appeal
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 31, 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