On April 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order titled Protecting American Energy From State Overreach. The order directs the U.S. attorney general to identify and take action against state and local laws “burdening” domestic energy development, especially laws addressing climate change, environmental, social, and government (ESG) initiatives, and environmental justice. The order highlights New York, Vermont, and California climate laws as examples of state actions that may be “beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities” and should be targeted by the Justice Department.
Key Provisions of the Executive Order
-
Identification of State Laws: The attorney general is tasked with identifying “all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices:
– That interfere with domestic energy development, and
– That “are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise. - Of these, the attorney general is directed to prioritize identification of climate change, ESG, environmental justice, and carbon or greenhouse gas laws and regulations, as well as lawsuits brought under nuisance or other tort theories, such as those brought against fossil fuel producers.
- Legal Action: The attorney general is directed to take “expeditious action,” including legal action, to halt the enforcement of such laws and policies and to prevent the continuation of related civil actions deemed illegal.
- Reporting Requirement: By June 7, 2025 (within 60 days of the executive order), the attorney general must submit a report to the president detailing the actions taken and recommending additional “Presidential or legislative action” necessary to stop the enforcement of state laws burdening domestic energy development.
Implications for State Energy Regulations
The executive order reinforces the administration’s policy to “unleash American energy,” and targets state-level climate (and other) initiatives that the administration regards as ideological and contrary to federal policy initiatives to expedite domestic energy production. In furtherance of the order, the attorney general may pursue lawsuits challenging state and local laws on grounds such as the Commerce Clause, federal preemption, or other legal theories.
Additionally, based on other recent initiatives from the Trump administration, the Justice Department may attempt to use non-litigation tools such as the withholding federal funding from states that refuse to abandon laws and policies deemed objectionable to the administration.
State-Level Responses
The executive order has elicited swift responses from states with climate-focused laws. New York Gov. Hochul and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, co-chairs of the Climate Alliance, have pledged on behalf of the Alliance’s member states continue advancing their energy policies.
New York, in particular, has implemented some of the nation’s most ambitious climate policies, including requiring a net zero-emissions power grid by 2040 and limiting statewide GHG emissions to 15% of 1990 levels by 2050. Notably, the executive order specifically referenced legislation recently enacted in New York that would require compensatory payments by the fossil fuel industry to fund various climate initiatives, which is already being challenged by industry. New York and other similarly situated states are almost certainly preparing to defend their climate agendas, and the outcomes of these legal challenges could have far-reaching implications.
GT Insights
The attorney general faces a 60-day deadline to:
- Identify burdensome state and local laws and policies in all 50 states;
- Take action against laws deemed illegal; and
- Prepare a report documenting such actions and recommending further actions to the president and Congress.
The attorney general may initially prioritize high-profile states and laws explicitly referenced in the executive order, such as New York, Vermont, and California. Litigation is inevitable, both to defend against Justice Department attempts to invalidate state climate programs and to challenge non-litigation measures the department might employ in furtherance of the order.
These legal battles are expected to test the boundaries of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case, California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987), which clarified that state law can be preempted if Congress demonstrates an intent to occupy the field or if the state law conflicts with federal law, making compliance with both impossible. At this time, however, state climate initiatives remain in effect until courts say otherwise or states move to revise their approaches.