The Trump administration is taking a proactive approach to attempts by blue states to use their laws to restrict the nation’s energy industry in the name of climate change politics.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has filed four lawsuits to “stop the enforcement of state laws that unreasonably burden domestic energy development so that energy will once again be reliable and affordable for all Americans,” according to a White House statement.
Two of the lawsuits were complaints against the states of New York and Vermont over their “climate superfund laws.”
The other two were pushback against Michigan and Hawaii, as well as their Democratic governors, Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Green.
In Hawaii, the state claims large oil companies have violated state law against “deceptive marketing practices,” echoing lawsuits by other state and local governments hoping to use local ordinances to impact global energy policy.
In Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel announced last year she planned to sue fossil fuel companies, claiming their business poses long-term risks to the people of Michigan.
In its suit, the Department of Justice says those actions are motivated by money.
“The specific theories on which Michigan would sue are known only to Michigan, but the goal of the lawsuit is clear—to extract large sums of money from fossil fuel companies for purportedly causing climate change impacts to Michigan.”
The Trump administration argues that federal law regulates carbon emissions and other climate-related policies, and states are illegally interjecting themselves into the issue.
“This Nation’s Constitution and laws do not tolerate this interference,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson, urging federal judges to declare the state lawsuits unconstitutional.
The move marks a departure from Trump’s first term, when the administration largely stood by as Democratic-led states, cities, and counties used local laws to target global energy companies. Those suits claimed Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Citgo, and Marathon Oil officials lied to residents about the environmental impacts of fossil fuels.
Whitmer has said she wants to make Michigan “a national leader in the fight against climate change.” She is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2028.
Green said any awarded funds would help Hawaii balance its budget. “If we had a terrible hurricane that took out part of Waikiki, I could quickly fix it because we’ll have these dollars.”
However, the Washington Free Beacon notes that Hawaii’s lawsuit doesn’t mention Houston-based Par Pacific and its subsidiary Par Hawaii, the oil company that operates the state’s sole petroleum refinery and remains the state’s leading supplier of gasoline and jet fuel.
More significantly, according to the Free Beacon, “Par and its executives, meanwhile, have a recent history of donating to Democratic campaigns in the state, something that may explain Par’s exclusion. Since 2018, Par and its executives have wired at least $45,100 to Hawaii Democrats, including Green, “who received more donations from the company than any other politician in that time span, a Washington Free Beacon review of campaign finance filings found.”
And unlike the largely bipartisan legal campaign of the 1990s against tobacco companies, the anti-Big Oil legal crusade is run by environmentalists and Democratic-run states.
The suits were filed in state courts where plaintiffs hoped to get more favorable results.
The Trump administration and the energy companies want the cases heard in federal court, citing the Clean Air Act and arguing the 1963 law supersedes state pollution laws.
Federal lawyers argue that while states may regulate emissions within their own borders, they lack authority over pollution originating elsewhere.
“[This includes] imposing liability for pollution from out-of-state sources,” wrote Gustafson in court documents. He argued that the scope of the suit goes beyond the limits of state law. He noted a state’s regulatory authority is limited to “conduct with a substantial nexus to the State.”
What particularly bothers the administration is the idea that the suits could lead to a “chaotic ‘patchwork’ of regulations.” That would make it harder for the federal government to come up with a “coherent national environmental policy.” It warns the local suits could also cause higher fuel prices and lead to economic disruption.
The decision by the Trump administration to enter the legal fight could prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to act.
The high court has mostly stayed out of the climate change lawsuit fight. Justices rejected a request from Republican-led states to sue the Democratic states for interfering with state sovereignty. It also rejected a request from energy companies to review a Hawaii Supreme Court decision on Honolulu’s suit.
Legal experts have predicted the Supreme Court will eventually get involved, but expressed frustration over the timeline.
“With all these cases all over the country, it would have been very helpful for the Supreme Court to at least lay down the standards and the rules of the road for how these cases should be looked at,” said Philip S. Goldberg, Special Consul, Manufacturers’ Accountability Project during a webinar hosted by the Washington Legal Foundation.
