The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Court Dismisses Trump Administration Effort to Block Michigan Climate Lawsuit
The Department of Justice failed to demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction to hear the (premature) claims.
The Trump Administration has taken a hard line against state climate policies, particularly efforts by states and localities to impose liability on fossil fuel companies for their role in increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. An April 2025 Executive Order instructed the Department of Justice and other agencies to intervene to block or obstruct such state-level initiatives.
Pursuant to the Executive Order, the Justice Department filed suit to prevent Michigan from filing suit against fossil fuel companies, as other states and some local jurisdictions have. As you might have anticipated, this suit had the problem of trying to preempt a lawsuit that has yet to be filed. Thus it should be unsurprising that United States v. Michigan has been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, with the judge finding that the Justice Department failed to demonstrate ripeness or standing.
The Justice Department attempted to argue that any suit Michigan could consider fiing against fossil fuel companies is preempted by federal law--but that claim is simply false (for reasons I've discussed in prior posts, such as those listed here). Tort litigation may be a bad way to try and address the problem of climate change, but that hardly means such suits are preempted by federal law, let alone that the federal government can rush to court to block a lawsuit that has not even been filed, nor does it mean that the federal government has standing to ask a federal court to preemptively intervene when a state is considering whether to file suit against private companies in state court.
Like it or not, Congress has never enacted legislation to preempt state litigation or legislation targeting fossil fuel companies or greenhouse gas emissions. If the Trump Administration and fossil fuel companies wish to preempt such efforts, they would be better advised to focus their efforts on encouraging Congress to act instead of filing meritless lawsuits like this one.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
> this suit had the problem of trying to preempt a lawsuit that has yet to be filed
Ok, but now that it’s filled, problem solved?
A lawsuit that seeks to enjoin itself? Interesting concept.
Not as dumb a strategy as it seems on its face. For example: anti gun groups have been filing suit in court against gun makers even though the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) specifically preempts any liability. File 20 lawsuits, one judge has sympathy and maybe the appellate court too. The Supreme Court wont take it up, or maybe they do, or maybe the gun maker settles creating a precent for monetary damages. A long odds gamble, but eventually the anti gun groups found a maker willing to settle.
Judges ignore the law all the time, and the government has infinite resources to pursue this environmental premption argument until eventually they win once or twice, maybe even create a circuit split. Who knows what five conservative Supreme Court justices might say?
A gamble with long odds. But the government can roll the dice as many times as they want. Eventually snakes eyes hits.
I never see you climate extremist retards living like you actually believe your horseshit, you're all just grifters looking for money, power and/or prestige with your ongoing fraud.
But how do you really feel?
I'm surprised that none of the VC contributors thought it noteworthy that the Sup. Ct, unanimously, rejected Trump's moronic attempt to overthrow the new California map. (I'm guessing that his assumption is: If I'm gonna federalize elections in all my "bad" states, Republicans will automatically win all future elections...everything else is small potatoes.")
But I was hoping that Josh would post about it, and observe that when you can't win over even Alito or Thomas, it means . . . something, something . . . proof of Democratic corruption!!!
Nothing says “libertarian” like state governments suing to curtail or even shut down private businesses engaged in lawful commerce.