Climate/Pollution Lawsuits
(filed both against and by the government or industry)
Not intended as comprehensive but illustrates through examples the legal landscape in re: to climate and pollution.
Suing to Restore Environmental Tools Scrubbed from Federal Websites
Shortly after the Trump regime took over in January 2025, it started removing essential information about climate change and environmental justice from the websites of various agencies — including the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The deleted pages were key to explaining how communities around the country are harmed by or benefit from energy, environmental, and transportation policies and…how pollution affects disadvantaged communities (which) supplied a means by which community advocates can explain environmental harms. They provided the foundation for public participation in regulatory and legislative processes. On April 14 — on behalf of the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others — Public Citizen filed suit in federal court challenging the removal of numerous interactive pages related to climate change and environmental justice from publicly accessible, and taxpayer-funded, government websites. On May 16, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction”. from Public Citizen
Empire Wind
In 2025 the Trump Administration put a stay on Empire Wind 1, off shore wind project. This delay jeopardizes New York’s climate goals, energy security, manufacturing investments, and thousands of clean energy jobs. The stakes are high: offshore wind energy offers New Yorkers reliable, affordable, energy that insulates us from fossil fuel price shocks while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, supports the electrification of heating and transportation, and reduces the need for new gas pipelines and LNG (liquified natural gas) gasification facilities. New York State has joined several other states in challenging the order through a lawsuit. This is about more than one project. It’s about whether we allow fossil fuel interests and authoritarian overreach to override science, law, and public will. It’s about whether New York—and the United States at large—will lead or fall behind in the global clean energy race. Offshore wind energy is essential to replacing fossil fuels, improving grid resilience, and protecting the climate. Halting projects now undercuts years of planning and billions in investment, while sending a chilling message to clean energy.
Youth-Led Constitutional Climate Lawsuit
In May 2025, 22 young Americans, aged 7 to 25, filed a lawsuit against former President Trump and federal agencies, alleging that executive orders promoting fossil fuel production violated their constitutional rights to life and liberty. The plaintiffs argue that these policies exacerbated climate change and degraded air quality, directly impacting their health. Represented by Our Children's Trust, they seek to undo the executive orders and assert that Trump lacked the authority to weaken environmental protections under the Clean Air Act. The Guardian+1The Verge+1Wikipedia+2The Verge+2The Guardian+2”
Challenges to Offshore Drilling Expansion
Environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, filed lawsuits against the Trump administration's efforts to expand offshore oil and gas drilling. One lawsuit targeted an executive order revoking protections for 625 million acres of federal waters, arguing that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act does not authorize the president to revoke previous withdrawals. Another lawsuit aimed to reinstate protections for nearly 130 million acres in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, emphasizing the ecological risks of drilling in these sensitive areas. Earthjustice+2euronews+2The Guardian+2The Guardian+1euronews+1”
Legal Action Over Climate Information Censorship
Earthjustice, along with other organizations, sued the Trump administration for removing climate-related information from government websites. The lawsuit contends that this censorship violates federal law and hampers farmers, researchers, and advocates who rely on such information to adapt to climate change. The plaintiffs seek to restore access to vital climate data and prevent further purging of information from federal platforms. Earthjustice
Bears Ears National Monument Reduction Lawsuits
In December 2017, following President Trump's proclamation to reduce the size of Bears Ears National Monument, three federal lawsuits were filed by Native American tribes, conservation groups, and NGOs. The plaintiffs argue that only Congress has the authority to revoke or modify a national monument, rendering Trump's action unlawful. These cases challenge the administration's attempts to diminish protections for culturally and environmentally significant lands. The Guardian+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3
Dakota Access Pipeline Legal Challenges
After President Trump signed an executive order in January 2017 to advance the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe filed legal actions. They contended that the pipeline's construction violated the National Environmental Policy Act and infringed upon tribal treaty rights. Despite initial setbacks, these legal challenges highlighted concerns over environmental justice and indigenous rights. Wikipedia
In working to advance clean energy, primarily democratic state attorneys general (AGs) brought dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration between 2017 and 2020 and against the fossil fuel industry up to the present, targeting rollbacks of environmental protections and climate regulations. Here are some of the major categories and notable AG lawsuits related to climate and pollution.
The tracker below from NY School of Law shows climate and pollution cases brought during Biden and Trump administrations.
AG Actions Databasehttps://stateimpactcenter.org/ag-work/ag-actions Last updated May 19, 2025.
Search our database Examples:
- 16 AG’s oppose rule to weaken Endangered Species Protections,
- 9 AG’s vs. FCC opposing proposal to bypass environmental review
- NJ AG (with DEP) settlement case with 3M
- 20 AG’s vs Federal Administration for leveraging disaster emergency funds for immigration policies
- 18 AG’s sued Trump Administration over wind halt
- 17 AG’s sought restoration of congressionally approved EV Funds
2023 Actions/Cases:
Six AGs Sent Comments on Federal Ocean Justice Strategy
Twenty-One AGs Sent Comments Calling on EPA to Set Even Stricter Emissions Standards for Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles
Twelve AGs Sent Comments on Strengthened EPA Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution from Plastics Manufacturing
Other examples of some of the major categories and notable AG lawsuits related to climate and pollution (source chatgpt):
According to resources like the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU Law, state AGs filed over 150 environmental legal actions during the Trump administration — many of them involving climate, air, and water protections.
Clean Power Plan / Affordable Clean Energy Rule: States sued the EPA for replacing the Clean Power Plan (Obama-era carbon emissions rule for power plants) with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, arguing it weakened emissions standards. Lead AGs: New York (Letitia James), California (Xavier Becerra).Outcome: In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the ACE Rule, paving the way for a return to stronger regulation (later affected by West Virginia v. EPA 2022).
Methane Emissions Rollback: States challenged the EPA’s rollback of rules regulating methane leaks from oil and gas operations. Some rules were reinstated or delayed due to litigation; ultimately, the Biden administration reversed the rollback.
Fuel Economy and Vehicle Emission Standards: States opposed the Trump administration’s rollback of Obama-era fuel efficiency standards (SAFE Rule) and the attempt to revoke California’s Clean Air Act waiver. Lead AGs: California (Becerra), Massachusetts, New York. Outcome: California's right to set its own standards was ultimately restored under Biden, but litigation during Trump slowed implementation. Two bills introduced in March in the U.S. Senate seek to amend the Clean Air Act (CAA) to limit or eliminate waivers granted to California allowing the state to adopt and enforce emissions regulations that are stricter than federal regulations. Apr 30, 2025 (google)
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) States opposed EPA’s efforts to weaken justification for regulating mercury emissions from coal plants. The rollback undermined public health and was procedurally flawed.
NEPA and Environmental Reviews: AGs sued over the Trump administration’s weakening of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which reduced environmental review requirements for major infrastructure projects. Changes were challenged as unlawful and environmentally harmful.
Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule: States challenged the Trump EPA's narrowing of federal water protections, arguing the new definition left many waterways unprotected. Lead AGs: California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington. Courts blocked the Trump-era rule in several states. Biden’s EPA later revised it again.
HFCs and the SNAP Program: AGs challenged the EPA’s rollback of limits on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. Courts sided with the challengers in NRDC v. EPA (2017), restricting EPA's rollback efforts.
States Frequently Involved: California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, Illinois — often formed the core coalition.
Main legal and policy offensives the Trump administration launched against state-led climate and pollution efforts
(this information was extracted from chatgpt)
The Trump administration did not frequently sue state attorneys general (AGs) directly in the same way AGs sued the administration. However, the Trump administration did take legal and administrative actions targeting state environmental policies, especially those led by Democratic-led states like California, New York, and Massachusetts. These actions often resulted in lawsuits or countersuits, forming legal battles with AGs rather than the federal government being the plaintiff in conventional lawsuits.
Federal Lawsuits Against State Climate Actions
In April 2025, the Trump administration's Department of Justice filed lawsuits against Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Vermont to block state-level climate initiatives. These states had enacted or planned laws holding fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate damages. The DOJ argued that such state actions interfere with federal authority, increase energy costs, and disrupt the national energy market, asserting that the Clean Air Act preempts state regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. SDG News+2The Washington Post+2Climate Change Litigation+2The Guardian
Challenge to California’s Clean Car Authority:
Counter-lawsuit: California and allied AGs sued the Trump administration to retain their Clean Air Act waiver. The case became part of broader litigation over vehicle emissions (SAFE Rule). (2019)
Attack on California’s Cap-and-Trade Agreement with Quebec:
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2021, ruling that California’s agreement did not violate federal authority. (2019)
Pushback on State-Led Climate Litigation Against Oil Companies:
While not always direct plaintiffs, Trump administration agencies filed amicus briefs or took positions supporting fossil fuel companies in cases where state AGs (e.g., in New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota) sued ExxonMobil, Shell, and others for climate deception.
Sanctuary City-Style Retaliation Tactics for Environmental Policy:
While not technically lawsuits, the Trump administration threatened funding cuts and other punishments for states like California over environmental standards and pollution policies (e.g., methane rules, water quality).These threats sometimes led to preemptive legal action or injunctions by state AGs.
As of 2025, no RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) case has successfully moved forward against fossil fuel companies in court — but the idea has been raised repeatedly and threatened in the context of climate deception lawsuits. The “Exxon Knew” Movement is based on investigative journalism (e.g., Inside Climate News, L.A. Times) alleging that ExxonMobil knew about climate risks since the 1970s but funded denial campaigns. Legal scholars and groups like the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have called for RICO investigations.The framing often echoes the U.S. v. Philip Morris (2006) case, where the DOJ used RICO successfully against tobacco companies for fraudulently concealing the harms of smoking.
RICO Claims Proposed – But Not Yet Ruled On:
ExxonMobil and Climate Fraud Investigations (2015–2016)
City and State Lawsuits Referencing RICO-Like Behavior
(But Not Filing RICO Claims)Rhode Island v. Chevron et al. Filed in 2018, this is one of over two dozen climate deception lawsuits brought by states, counties, and cities. While not a RICO case, the lawsuit alleges a coordinated campaign of deception by fossil fuel companies.Legal claims center around public nuisance, failure to warn, and consumer protection laws, not RICO. Similar lawsuits filed by:New York City,Massachusetts (AG Maura Healey), Minnesota, Baltimore, San Francisco/Oakland
ExxonMobil Strikes Back with Its Own Alleged RICO Claims:
ExxonMobil v. Healey / Schneiderman (2016). ExxonMobil sued AGs from Massachusetts and New York, claiming their investigations violated the company’s constitutional rights and were part of a conspiracy involving activists and state officials.Exxon tried to frame this as a RICO-style conspiracy, but courts rejected this framing and the case was dismissed.
Several lawsuits related to plastics and pollution were filed against the Trump administration by states, environmental groups, and coalitions of attorneys general.
While the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda focused more on fossil fuels and air/water rules, some of its actions (or inactions) on plastic pollution, chemical waste, and hazardous materials led to notable legal challenges. Here's a focused summary:
1. Lawsuit Over Failure to Regulate Plastic Waste Under the Clean Water Act; Plaintiffs: Environmental groups (e.g., Center for Biological Diversity) (2020)
2. Rollback of Chemical Accident Prevention Rule (EPA Risk Management Program);Court Outcome: In 2020, the D.C. Circuit upheld parts of the rollback but questioned EPA’s rationale — a partial legal win for plaintiffs.
3. TSCA Lawsuits – Toxic Substances and Plastics Chemicals; In 2021, the Ninth Circuit ruled that EPA must revise its risk evaluations, including legacy uses.
4. Microplastics and Marine Pollution – Inaction Allegations; EPA Inaction on Ocean Plastic Waste:No major lawsuit directly on this issue during Trump’s term, but groups filed petitions and threatened legal action
Related Environmental Rollbacks Affecting Plastic Pollution: see chart below. Though not always plastic-specific, several rollbacks under Trump indirectly increased plastic and pollution risks, prompting lawsuits:
Issue
|
Filed By
|
Law Invoked
|
Status
|
Refusal to Regulate Plastic Waste
|
Center for Biological Diversity
|
Clean Water Act
|
Pending/Shifted under Biden
|
Chemical Safety Rollbacks (TSCA)
|
NRDC, Earthjustice, State AGs
|
Clean Water At
|
Pending/Shifted
|
Chemical Accident Prevention Rollback
|
State AGs + NGOs
|
Clean Air Act (RMB Rule)
|
Mixed ruling (part upheld, part question)
|
NEPA Rollbacks (Affecting Plastic Infra
|
Multiple State AGs
|
National Environmental Policy Act (NE
|
Suits filed; many reversed under Biden
|
Using headlines to explain how TARIFFS may IMPACT NYS
Using articles with links and underlines to provide information:
Tariffs' effects on NY state electricity. NY gets about 5% of its electricity from Tariffs:
The tariffs on electricity from Canada could significantly impact New York State's electricity prices. The federal administration's focus on tariffs has created uncertainty about the future of US-Canada relations, which could lead to increased electricity rates. While only a portion of the electricity bill is subject to tariffs, even a 25% tariff could increase a $100 monthly bill by about $8. This could put additional costs on the system and strain the financial resources of consumers. The New York Independent System Operator is actively pursuing guidance on how the electricity market would be affected by these tariffs.
www.rochesterfirst.com/news/discussing-potential-electricity-price-hikes-in-new-york-following-canadas-tariff-change/
This report from Spectrum news examines the impact the 10% energy tariff could have on natural gas, heating oil, propane, diesel and gasoline imports, and a range of impacts a 10-25% tariff could have on electricity imports.
The agencies reported that uncertainties regarding Trump's trade policy made it difficult to forecast precise impacts, and cost increases "will not be material in the near-term" due to the state's energy policies.
"However, the cost increases will be borne by households and businesses across New York and, over time, with added influence from tariffs on other sectors, New Yorkers could experience compounding cost impacts," the state DPS said in a statement.
It also notes that continued assistance from the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is essential to help vulnerable New York households pay for their utilities.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2025/03/20/tariffs-threaten-to-raise-utility-costs-in-new-york--state-report-says
About $378 million of Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funding remains to be distributed. Without federal staff, some experts and advocates worry that low-income customers won’t be able to pay for cooling as the months get hotter.
Yes, LIHEAP has been cut. The Trump administration eliminated the entire staff of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which affects its ability to manage and distribute funds. This decision has raised concerns among advocates and program users about the potential loss of assistance for low-income households, as the program provides critical support for heating and cooling costs246.
www.stlpr.org/2025-04-14/liheap-federal-layoffs-utility-assistance-funding
Low-income families can still get LIHEAP assistance with their heating bills to help defray the possible increase with tariffs, but the 47 regime wants to do away with the program.