Federal Judge Blocks New York’s $75B Climate Law as Unconstitutional
Second federal judge strikes down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to energy markets.
2 min read
A second federal judge has ruled that New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act is unconstitutional, marking the second court to strike down the law. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York, found the statute preempted by both the federal Clean Air Act and the foreign affairs doctrine. The ruling permanently enjoins the state from enforcing the law.
Law Targeted Energy Companies Globally
The law, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in December 2024, aimed to impose a $75 billion climate adaptation fund on large oil, gas, and coal producers. It required companies to contribute $3 billion annually for 25 years, regardless of their operations in New York. The statute also extended liability to firms responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse-gas emissions between 2000 and 2018, including activities abroad.
Federal Authority Over Energy Market Confirmed
Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward stated that the law jeopardizes American access to affordable and reliable energy. Both federal judges who reviewed the statute concluded that the federal government, not the states, holds responsibility for regulating the nation’s energy market. The Justice Department emphasized its commitment to blocking state attempts to undermine federal energy policy.
Law Seen as a Widespread Threat
Despite its ambitious scope, the law faced criticism for its broad reach and lack of legal requirements for illegal conduct. The first payments were set to begin in 2028, and similar laws were reportedly being considered in other states. Critics argue that the law represents an overreach of state power and undermines the federal regulatory framework.
Legal Precedent and Broader Implications
Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the Northern District of New York had previously ruled against the statute, calling it an “unusual and sweeping” law that exceeded state authority. The latest ruling reinforces the argument that such state-level climate policies infringe on federal jurisdiction, particularly in areas of energy and foreign policy.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
