Hochul and James Lose Federal Court Fight Over New York’s $75 Billion Climate Superfund Law

NEW YORK — September 29, 2026. A federal judge has permanently blocked enforcement of New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, handing Governor Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James and other state officials another major legal defeat over a law designed to collect $75 billion from fossil-fuel producers.

On September 23, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel granted summary judgment to the United States and the Environmental Protection Agency, ruling that New York’s law is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act and by the federal government’s authority over foreign affairs. The court declared the law unconstitutional and permanently barred state officials from enforcing it. Justia Dockets & Filings

The defendants in the case included Governor Kathleen Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James and New York Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Amanda Lefton, all in their official capacities. Justia Dockets & Filings

A $75 Billion Climate Fund

The Climate Change Superfund Act, signed by Hochul in December 2024, was designed to create a $75 billion fund for infrastructure projects intended to address flooding, extreme heat and other climate-related impacts.

Under the law, large companies involved in fossil-fuel extraction or crude-oil refining between 2000 and 2024 could be assigned liability based on the share of global greenhouse-gas emissions attributed to their products. Justia Dockets & Filings

The Hochul administration described the law as a way to make major fossil-fuel companies pay for climate-related damage rather than leaving those costs entirely to New Yorkers. Governor Kathy Hochul

The Justice Department took the opposite view.

When it sued New York, DOJ argued that state climate laws of this kind burden energy production and ultimately force Americans to pay more for energy. The department also argued that individual states cannot impose their own financial penalties for global greenhouse-gas emissions that are already subject to federal regulation. Department of Justice

Court Says New York Went Beyond State Authority

Judge Castel did not rule on whether climate change exists or whether New York faces climate-related infrastructure costs.

Instead, the decision focused on who has the legal authority to regulate emissions and impose liability for activities occurring across the United States and around the world.

The court concluded that New York’s law intruded into areas governed by the Clean Air Act and federal foreign-affairs powers. Justia Dockets & Filings

The September ruling follows a separate federal decision in August that also blocked the law. DOJ described the September ruling as the second federal court decision against New York’s Climate Superfund law within roughly a month. Department of Justice

DOJ Says the Law Threatened Energy Costs

In its September 28 announcement, the Justice Department said the court had prevented New York from imposing $75 billion in liability on global energy producers.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward argued that the law threatened access to affordable and reliable energy. That is the federal government’s position; the ruling itself centered on constitutional and federal-preemption questions rather than making a definitive economic finding about future consumer prices. Department of Justice

That distinction matters.

The law formally imposed liability on energy companies, not directly on individual New York taxpayers. Critics, including the Trump administration, argued that companies would ultimately pass at least part of those costs through the economy. Supporters of the law argued that taxpayers would otherwise bear climate-adaptation costs themselves.

Video Analysis

The ruling was discussed in a September 28 livestream that characterized the decision as a major defeat for Hochul and James and portrayed the Climate Superfund as an attempt by state officials to create a massive government-controlled pool of money funded by energy companies.

The video uses highly partisan language, including descriptions of the law as a money grab. Those characterizations are commentary, not findings of the federal court.

What the court did establish is narrower but significant: the current New York Climate Change Superfund Act cannot be enforced because the federal court found it preempted by federal law and federal authority.

Watch the full YouTube livestream analyzed for this article

For WordPress, you can paste that YouTube URL on a separate line in the editor and WordPress should automatically embed the video.

Midtown Tribune Previously Examined Climate Claims

The ruling comes just days after Midtown Tribune examined historical temperature records, competing interpretations of climate data and claims surrounding the scientific consensus during Climate Week NYC.

Our earlier analysis reviewed historical temperature patterns and the limits of using individual local records to prove or disprove long-term global trends.

Climate Week NYC 2026: What Does “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming Actually Mean?

Midtown Tribune has also previously examined historic temperature records from major cities and how individual record highs compare with broader global climate trends.

How Historic Temperature Records Challenge the Global Warming Narrative

Key Facts

The Climate Change Superfund Act created a planned $75 billion climate-adaptation fund. Governor Kathy Hochul signed the law in December 2024. The federal government sued New York in 2025. Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled on September 23, 2026 that the law is preempted by the Clean Air Act and federal foreign-affairs authority. The court permanently barred Hochul, James and other state officials from enforcing it. A second federal court had already ruled against the law in August. Justia Dockets & Filings