On Wednesday—the fourth day New York’s annual Climate Week—a federal judge handed the Trump administration a major victory by striking down New York’s landmark Climate Change Superfund Act.

Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled that the law, which sought to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate change-related damages, overstepped the state’s authority because it was preempted by the national Clean Air Act and interfered with the federal government’s ability to conduct foreign affairs. Castel’s ruling comes just a few weeks after a similar decision by Judge Brenda Sannes in a parallel case brought by a coalition of Republican-led states, business groups, and fossil fuel companies.

“So is it taxpayers who are going to pay for it? Or is it billionaires?”

Enacted in 2024, the New York law was part of a major push in Democratic-leaning states to crack down on carbon pollution in a way the federal government has so far failed to do. It employed a familiar strategy from the 1980s: Make polluters pay. Modeled after the federal Superfund statute for toxic waste dumps, New York’s climate superfund law would have charged fossil fuel companies $75 billion over 25 years to fund climate adaptation and infrastructure projects. Since the measure’s introduction in 2023, lawmakers in other states have pursued similar legislation.

As of now, the back-to-back court decisions directly apply only within New York state. But these rulings could offer the fossil fuel industry a roadmap for challenging similar laws, and the judges’ reasoning could ultimately be adopted by other courts, including the US Supreme Court. Now, state lawmakers considering their own climate superfund legislation face a difficult choice: Change course in response to the New York rulings, or push ahead and try to defend their bills in court.

I spoke to lawmakers and advocates from Minnesota, Washington, Connecticut, and Vermont, all of whom have drafted legislation, are considering legislation, or, in the case of Vermont, have successfully passed their own climate superfund law. While slightly different in their state-specific parameters, the legislators and activists behind these bills share the same goal: With climate-related damage already costing states and residents considerable amounts of money, the companies responsible for a significant share of historical emissions should help cover the bill.

In Minnesota, a superfund bill has already been introduced, and legislators in Washington and Connecticut are planning to propose bills for their upcoming legislative sessions. Bloomberg recently reported that lawmakers in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are all continuing to move forward with superfund legislation.

After the first New York ruling, I asked Minnesota State Rep. Athena Hollins, a deputy floor leader for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, what she thought of the decision. “I find it personally disappointing,” she replied, “because the reality is these costs are........

© Mother Jones