On August 31, 2026, the US District Court for the Northern District of New York struck down the state’s climate superfund law, the Climate Change Superfund Act.i In a 63-page, well-reasoned decision relying largely on Second Circuit precedent, the court found that the act, which is “designed to ‘impose strict liability for the damages caused by fossil fuel emissions no matter where in the world those emissions were released[,]” is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.ii In the decision, US District Judge Brenda K. Sannes said:
In seeking damages for the cumulative impact of conduct that has occurred simultaneously across just about every jurisdiction on the planet, the Climate Act conflicts with the overriding need for a uniform rule of decision on matters influencing national energy and environmental policy, and basic interests of federalism.iii
In 2024, New York State enacted the Climate Change Superfund Act, which establishes “a climate change adaptation cost recovery program[.]” The purpose of the act was to secure compensatory payments from responsible parties based on a standard of strict liability to provide a source of revenue for climate change adaptive infrastructure projects within New York.iv The act establishes a total “cost recovery amount” of $75 billion, and requires “responsible parties” to pay their “proportional liability” for that amount.v
Barclay Damon served as local counsel to the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association, and the Business Council of New York State, Inc., who challenged the act on a number of bases, including federal preemption under the US Constitution and federal Clean Air Act. Similar lawsuits were filed by a coalition of 22 states, led by West Virgina, and the US Department of Justice. Ultimately, the case was consolidated with the West Virginia case.
This case has national implications. At the outset, it is likely to be influential in the US Department of Justice’s similar challenge to the New York State law pending in the Southern District of New York as well as pending challenges to Vermont’s Climate Superfund Law. The court’s ruling is also to be used during other states’ ongoing debates as to whether to enact similar laws seeking cost recovery from fossil fuel companies for client-change impacts.
Barclay Damon will continue to monitor developments, including whether New York State appeals, which we expect, and the outcomes in the United States’ pending proceeding in the Southern District of New York. We are also closely monitoring the pending City of Boulder matter pending before the US Supreme Court, which recently granted certiorari to address whether state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate are preempted.vi In that case, the Colorado court disagreed with the Second Circuit and ruled that the local law in that case was not preempted.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Yvonne Hennessey, Environmental Practice Area chair and co-leader of the Oil & Gas Team, at yhennessey@barclaydamon.com; Rick Harturnian, partner, at rhartunian@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Energy Practice Area or Oil & Gas Team.
iChamber of Commerce v. James, No. 25-cv-01307 (N.D.N.Y.).
iiSlip. Op., p. 48 (citing City of New York v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81, 93 (2d Cir. 2021).
iiiSlip. Op. p. 62 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
ivN.Y. Env’t Conserv. Law (ECL) § 76-0103(2)(a).
vECL § 76-0101(6), § 76-0103(2)(b).
viSee Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Cnty. Commissioners of Boulder Cnty., No. 25-170 (U.S. Aug 8, 2025).