I can’t believe I missed this
Second Federal Court Strikes Down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act
On September 23, 2026, a second federal district court struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act (the Act), this time in a lawsuit brought by the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In United States v. State of New York, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the Act is preempted both by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and, independently, by the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs. The Court declared the Act unconstitutional and permanently enjoined New York officials from enforcing it.
This new ruling comes less than a month after the Northern District of New York reached substantially the same result in West Virginia v. James. As we reported on September 1, the N.D.N.Y. held that the Act was preempted by federal law in litigation brought by a coalition of states and industry associations. We also previously described the Act and potential legal challenges when it was enacted. (snip)
Like the court in West Virginia, Judge Castel relied heavily on the Second Circuit’s 2021 decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., which rejected New York City’s effort to recover climate-related damages from fossil-fuel companies under state tort law because claims based on interstate and global GHG emissions implicate federal interests requiring a uniform rule.
The Cultists said they were “waiting to see” what happened in the Southern District, and, now that the law has been shot down, what now?
The Court also rejected any meaningful distinction between state common-law damages — the claims at issue in City of New York — and a state statute imposing comparable liability. Because interstate air-pollution disputes historically have been governed by federal law, and Congress displaced federal common law in this area through the CAA, the Court concluded that New York may impose such liability only if authorized by the CAA. It found no such authorization.
Notably, the Court held that the EPA’s 2026 rescission of its GHG endangerment finding did not alter the preemption analysis. In the Court’s view, the relevant question is whether federal law authorizes the state regime, not whether the EPA currently chooses to exercise its regulatory authority over GHG emissions.
So, is Gov Kathy Hochul, who takes lots and lots of fossil fueled travel, still looking at options? Probably so, because the Warmists will never give up.
