In a recent ruling, a federal judge deemed New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act unconstitutional for the second time in a month. The September 23, 2026 decision in United States v. New York by Senior District Judge P. Kevin Castel permanently blocked the enforcement of the 2024 Climate Act, which sought to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for damages related to over a billion tons of emissions between 2000 and 2024.
The Climate Act aimed to make these companies pay a share of $75 billion for adaptation infrastructure costs, modeling itself after the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act from 1980. The Court found the federal government had standing based on its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act and control over international affairs.
Judge Castel ruled that interstate greenhouse gas emissions have historically been regulated by federal law, and the Clean Air Act does not authorize state-level regulation to the extent of the Climate Act, which was deemed preempted. He also noted that climate change is a global issue, not a state concern, aligning with previous rulings concerning federal supremacy in this field.
While the federal government’s other claims were not addressed, the case reflects a larger trend of states attempting to hold fossil fuel producers liable through legal means. Similar laws and challenges are underway in Vermont and Hawaii, with ongoing litigation impacting local efforts to seek damages for climate-related harms.
With the federal landscape shifting under new administrations, states are exploring creative legal routes to address climate change, though they face significant legal challenges. The upcoming Supreme Court case Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County could further clarify the scope of state and local jurisdiction in climate litigation.
