States Clash With Trump Admin Over Climate Policy Control

The Department of Justice’s lawsuit against four states over climate legislation sets the stage for a major clash between state and federal authority.

Quick Takes

The DOJ has filed lawsuits against Hawaii, Michigan, Vermont, and New York for climate laws it deems unconstitutional.
The DOJ challenges state laws as preempted by federal rules such as the Clean Air Act.
The states’ actions are seen as a threat to U.S. energy independence and security, according to DOJ.
The outcome could redefine state-federal relations in climate policy.

Federal Authority vs. States’ Rights

The DOJ has taken legal action against Hawaii, Michigan, Vermont, and New York over their climate-related legislation, asserting federal supremacy in environmental policy. The lawsuits argue these states’ laws are unconstitutional as they interfere with federal regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act. The federal government’s stance marks an effort to ensure a consistent national framework, avoiding fragmented state-driven approaches.

The DOJ contends that allowing states to pursue disparate climate strategies could harm national economic and energy security. This legal battle is a pivotal point in defining the borders of state and federal jurisdiction on environmental issues.

Justice Department Files Complaints Against Hawaii, Michigan, New York and Vermont Over Unconstitutional State Climate Actions

🔗: https://t.co/4vJqkv6NWS pic.twitter.com/alP9wLC2rh

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) May 1, 2025

Impact on State Climate Laws

New York and Vermont face challenges over their “climate superfund” laws, meant to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for environmental impacts. These laws also aim to raise substantial funds, with New York seeking $75 billion in damages. Hawaii and Michigan’s efforts to sue fossil fuel companies in state courts are also under scrutiny. The DOJ maintains these laws create undue barriers to national energy policies.

“When states seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authority, they harm the country’s ability to produce energy and they aid our adversaries,” said acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson.

Despite DOJ opposition, state leaders, including New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, have expressed their intent to defend state actions against perceived federal overreach, framing it as a matter of state rights and local accountability.

The DOJ filed lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan over planned legal action against fossil fuel companies. Then the DOJ sued New York and Vermont, challenging their climate superfund laws.https://t.co/c77uxUBezl

— KRCG 13 (@KRCG13) May 2, 2025

What’s at Stake?

The DOJ’s pursuit for clarity in the regulatory domain emphasizes a need to guard national interests and prevent jurisdictional deadlocks. With President Trump’s Executive Order 14260, energy production is highlighted as vital for national security, preventing state interference considered detrimental.

“These burdensome and ideologically motivated laws and lawsuits threaten American energy independence and our country’s economic and national security,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.

While the DOJ’s actions underline a preference for centralized oversight, states continue to advocate for legislation reflecting their local environmental priorities. This evolving legal narrative will shape future interactions between federal agencies and states on climate and energy issues.