NY climate lawsuit is about grabbing green, not going green

Fox News - Mar 17th, 2025

New York has enacted a 'climate superfund' law, spearheaded by Governor Kathy Hochul, which places financial responsibility on a select group of energy producers for climate change damages, with a mandatory $75 billion fine. This law, following Vermont's similar initiative, has prompted legal challenges, including a federal lawsuit filed by state attorneys general from 22 states. The plaintiffs argue that New York's law represents unconstitutional overreach by imposing extraterritorial limits on energy production and violating principles such as the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'excessive fines' and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

The adoption of climate superfund laws by New York and Vermont reflects ongoing efforts by blue states to enforce climate policy in a manner previously unsuccessful in court. However, these initiatives face significant legal challenges as they attempt to circumvent federal preemption under statutes like the Clean Air Act. Courts have consistently dismissed climate-related lawsuits, and the superfund laws' retroactive penalties and lack of causation proof further complicate their constitutional standing. The broader implications suggest a potential clash between state-led environmental policy and federal jurisdiction, raising questions about states' roles in addressing climate change through legislative means.

Kathy Hochul New York Climate Change Vermont Constitutional Law Epa Lee Zeldin Climate Superfund Energy Producers Federal Lawsuit

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a critical perspective on New York's climate superfund law, effectively highlighting potential legal and constitutional challenges. It accurately reports on the law's existence and similar legislation in Vermont, but some claims, such as the lawsuit by state attorneys general, require further verification. The article's opinionated tone and lack of balanced viewpoints limit its comprehensiveness and may polarize readers. While it engages with a timely and public-interest topic, the presentation could benefit from more diverse sourcing and transparency. Overall, the article is informative but would be strengthened by a more nuanced exploration of differing perspectives and clearer source attribution.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on the existence of New York's climate superfund law and its signing by Governor Kathy Hochul, which aligns with official announcements and legal analyses. It correctly identifies Vermont as having passed a similar law and facing legal challenges. However, the claim about a lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general lacks direct verification from independent sources, making it a point needing further confirmation. The dismissal of New Jersey's climate lawsuit against oil companies is accurately reported, supported by legal records. The article's legal arguments on constitutional issues are opinions rather than verifiable facts but reflect common criticisms. Overall, the article presents a mix of verified facts and speculative legal interpretations, which are typical in opinion pieces.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a critical perspective on New York's climate superfund law, focusing on potential legal and constitutional issues. It lacks representation of viewpoints supporting the law or discussing its intended environmental benefits. The article could benefit from including comments from environmental advocates or legal experts who support the legislation to provide a more balanced view. The absence of these perspectives leads to an imbalanced presentation, favoring criticism over a nuanced discussion of the law's implications.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, presenting its arguments logically. It effectively communicates the main points regarding the climate superfund law and its potential legal challenges. However, the tone is decidedly opinionated, which may affect the perceived neutrality. While the article is accessible to readers familiar with legal and environmental issues, those without such background may find the legal jargon challenging. Simplifying complex legal concepts could enhance clarity for a broader audience.

Source quality

The article references legal cases and actions by state governments, which are credible sources of information. However, it lacks direct attribution to primary sources or official statements, relying instead on a legal expert's opinion. The author's affiliation with a law school provides some authority, but the potential bias due to the opinionated nature of the piece is evident. More diverse sourcing, including direct quotes from involved parties or official documents, would enhance the article's credibility.

Transparency

The article provides limited transparency regarding its sources and the basis for its claims. While it discusses legal challenges and constitutional arguments, it does not clearly disclose the methodology or sources for some of its assertions, such as the alleged lawsuit by state attorneys general. The author's position as a law professor is mentioned, suggesting expertise, but potential biases are not addressed. Greater transparency in source attribution and potential conflicts of interest would improve the article's transparency.