Multiple state lawmakers say they’re planning to propose bills for upcoming legislative sessions that would force polluters to pay for climate change despite a recent ruling from a federal judge that effectively blocked New York’s climate superfund law.
Legislators in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts, who have sponsored “climate superfund” legislation similar to New York and Vermont’s laws in the past, all told Bloomberg Law they’re interested in advancing proposals despite the judge’s ruling, but weren’t yet clear on how the judge’s decision could impact their legislation.
Massachusetts State Rep. Steven Owens (D), who sponsored a climate superfund bill that didn’t make it out of committee last year, said “there’s still opportunities to move forward” this coming session and that he’s looking at the ruling trying to “future-proof the bill a little bit.”
“We’re still digesting,” Owens said. “There’s still some question of whether we can craft something that’s likely to withstand scrutiny.”
Since Vermont and New York enacted their own policies in 2024, legislators in other Democratic strongholds have tried to pass similar laws. But while several states considered some type of climate superfund legislation in 2026, according to the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, most of those bills didn’t pass. In some instances, litigation and pushback from red states, industry groups, and the Trump administration made other state legislators hesitant to advance similar policies to New York and Vermont.
Where States Go From Here
California Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D) said she also plans to re-introduce climate superfund legislation but doesn’t know if it will be the same as the version that died during the state’s recently concluded session.
She’s looking at “some kind of polluters pay legislation that gets at the core of making sure that these big polluters who are causing global devastation really have to answer to that and pay their fair share,” she said.
Addis said she’s been talking with supporters since last year about how to structure the bill and ensure its effectiveness “even outside of this ruling,” but also questioned if the judge’s order is the final decision on the matter.
“I don’t think by any stretch it means that we can stop doing what we’re doing,” Addis added. “It means we need to lean in and figure out how to get this done.”
Illinois General Assembly Majority Leader Robyn Gabel (D), who sponsored a climate superfund bill in Illinois that didn’t make it out of committee this past spring, said it’s “industry strategy” to try to scare lawmakers away.
“It’s important to move ahead with our bill,” she said, adding that “nothing in that ruling really applies” to Illinois. “Judges here are free to consider our law on its own merits,” Gabel added.
Maine is supposed to finish its climate superfund cost study by the end of 2027, which means lawmakers would wait until 2028 if they seek to enact a law creating a fund, said Sean Mahoney, vice president and senior counsel at the Conservation Law Foundation, which intervened in the Vermont case and helped orchestrate the Maine bill.
“It could provide us maybe with some guideposts,” Mahoney said of the ruling. “For the most part, our focus right now is going to be getting this cost study done.”
Fossil Free Media, the nonprofit pushing the Make Polluters Pay campaign and encouraging lawmakers to adopt legislation, has been quick to tout the number of lawmakers who are still committed to advancing legislation after the ruling.
“The New York ruling does not determine the legality of climate superfund laws nationwide,” Cassidy DiPaola, Fossil Free Media’s communications director for the campaign, said.
What’s Next in the Litigation
West Virginia, first in the coalition of red states that sued New York over its law and also part of the lawsuit against Vermont, is hoping that the judge’s order in the New York case has a broader effect on other states seeking to mimic those two states.
“The dream outcome would be for us to not have to litigate anymore because rationality sweeps through legislatures throughout the country who have this, in my mind’s eye, ridiculous theory on how to extract money from states that produce energy,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey (R) said, adding that the judge’s order in the New York case, while not legally binding across the US, could have that desired effect. He added that it doesn’t make sense for other states to consider this type of legislation given the ruling.
Spokespeople for the US Chamber of Commerce, a plaintiff in both cases, and the US Department of Justice, which encouraged the judge to rule in the plaintiffs’ favor in the New York case and sued Vermont over its law, declined to comment on potential impacts from the ruling.
New York hasn’t yet appealed the ruling. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) recently told reporters the state is “looking at our options of appeal.”
New York State Sen. Liz Krueger (D), who sponsored the climate superfund bill that became law, criticized the ruling, saying the judge didn’t correctly differentiate between tort litigation and the “state legislature exercising its constitutional powers to raise revenues and protect its citizens.”
The Vermont case, which both sides argued in March, is still pending. Both Fossil Free Media’s DiPaola and Conservation Law Foundation’s Mahoney expressed optimism about the judge’s posture in that case compared to New York, with Mahoney saying there “really could be a different outcome.”
McCuskey, however, said he’s “expecting a good ruling” and his state “walked out of that room feeling if this is going to be a question of law as opposed to politics, the judge was asking all of the correct questions.”
In the meantime, he’s ready to target other states if he needs to.
“If any other state passes a superfund, we will be suing them almost instantaneously,” he said.