Trump Backs 24-State Lawsuit Against NY, Vermont Over Climate Liability Laws

The U.S. legal war over climate responsibility is getting fiercer as the U.S. Justice Department, backed by 24 Republican states, sued New York and Vermont for the newly passed climate "Superfund" bill. The legislation aims to make fossil fuel firms financially responsible for their past emissions of greenhouse gases and their role in causing climate change.

Vermont enacted its climate liability legislation in May 2024, and New York came on board later in the year. The legislation mandates fossil fuel companies to reimburse the costs of climate damages as well as the upgrading of infrastructure. New York's legislation, for example, mandates payments from fossil fuel companies of around $75 billion up to 2050, or around $3 billion annually. The amounts were calculated based on each company's historical contribution towards greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, the Trump administration has followed a confrontational path. In April of 2025, President Trump signed an executive order mandating the U.S. Attorney General to object any state or local action that is seen to encroach upon domestic energy production. The order was squarely aimed at climate change-based regulation and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices on grounds of them being unconstitutional and contrary to American interests.

The Justice Department, in response to the executive order, sued Vermont and New York, saying that such policies at the state level choke national energy independence and are against federal law. The DOJ argues that such policies would slow down the efficiency of energy companies in conducting business and increase the cost of energy for consumers, posing risks to economic and national security.

In addition to the federal lawsuit, 24 Attorneys General from states also joined another lawsuit against Vermont's Superfund bill. The effort is led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey and is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. It would be a perilous precedent, and it would result in higher consumer costs and discourage domestic investment in energy, the coalition argues.

Some of the member states, such as Texas, Florida, Alabama, and Ohio, are large producers or consumers of fossil fuels. In a common submission, they comment that making energy companies liable for historical emissions could drive production to nations with less stringent environmental standards. The group also warns of likely effects on energy price and availability if domestic companies reduce activity or pull out of the U.S. market.

The New York and Vermont lawsuits are based on state overreach concerns. The plaintiffs assert that holding long-term responsibility in fossil fuel companies for global climate change goes beyond the authority of individual states and encroaches on federal energy policy. Those supporting the lawsuits think that the actions must be settled through federal law instead of piecemeal state-by-state regulation.

Critics of the Superfund law argue that the economic burden will be shifted to consumers, rather than corporations. They contend that the higher cost of doing business for energy producers will be passed along in electricity prices and in gasoline prices and as a result energy will be more expensive to consumers and businesses. The critics also contend that the law will deter investment in clean technologies if companies are subjected to prolonged legal and financial uncertainty.

On the other side of the debate, proponents of the Superfund bill argue that the fossil fuel sector should be held responsible for the environmental and economic damages of decades of uncontrolled emissions. They view the bill as a necessary step toward climate justice and covering the infrastructure to adapt and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

The court battle reveals a deeper national split on how the U.S. responds to climate change. States call for bold regulation and corporate responsibility on one hand and energy independence, economic security, and liberty on the other. The conflict frames competing visions of environmental stewardship and government's role.

As the suits make their way through the courts, the decision could have sweeping effects on the future of U.S. climate policy. A victory for the plaintiffs would restrict the states' capacity to pursue climate-linked financial sanctions, and could slow local climate projects. If the courts rule in favor of the Superfund legislation, however, other states might be motivated to follow suit.

The present legal standoff is also set to shape the national climate policy debate in the run-up to future elections. Trump administration moves convey a clear rejection of state-sponsored climate responsibility legislation and more generally a retreat from ESG policy. Democratic states and environmental groups will, accordingly, likely step up efforts to hold polluters accountable.

Controversy revolves around the following:
In brief, the New York and Vermont lawsuits capture a moment of inflection in American climate politics, where an overlap of federal rule-making, corporate accountability, and state jurisdiction is being argued in court.
The findings determined in these tests might determine the liability boundaries of climate impacts and pave the way for how the country should be headed in resolving the environmental implications of fossil fuel consumption for generations to come.

Source and Credits:
Source: Reuters
Credits: KnowESG