Michigan Federal Court Rejects Trump Administration Efforts to Quash Michigan State Action on Climate

The federal trial court decision in United States v. State of Michigan represents a setback for the Trump Administration’s broader efforts to support “energy dominance.” It also marks an inflection point in the evolving landscape of federalism and energy policy. 

Case Background

The lawsuit arose following Executive Order No. 14260, titled “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” which President Trump signed on April 8, 2025. The executive order directed the Attorney General to “expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State laws and continuation of civil actions” that burden the production and use of domestic energy resources. Just 16 days later, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this suit against Michigan.

The complaint targeted Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who had solicited proposals from law firms “to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry.” The government sought declaratory and injunctive relief to permanently prevent Michigan from bringing any state-law claims against fossil fuel companies, on the theory that these claims would necessarily be preempted by federal law and would injure federal sovereign interests. The catch here? Michigan had not yet filed any claims.

The Court’s Decision

Michigan moved to dismiss on two related grounds rooted in Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement: ripeness and standing.

Ripeness

A case is considered “ripe” for judicial review when it presents a concrete legal dispute that is suitable for resolution by a court. The ripeness doctrine prevents courts from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies or issuing advisory opinions on hypothetical future events. (For more on the ripeness doctrine, see here).

The court determined that the federal government’s lawsuit failed to meet this standard. Whatever claims Michigan might later bring were not filed before the federal suit to preempt them. The court noted that the dispute turned on “contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” Without claims by Michigan on file identifying legal theories and defendants, the court found it impossible to evaluate the federal government’s preemption arguments.

Additionally, the court found that the federal government had not demonstrated any hardship from deferring judicial review. The government argued that the threat of undermining “federal sovereignty” and the risk of “legal uncertainty” constituted sufficient injury, but the court rejected this reasoning. Any such harm was deemed speculative and contingent on events that had not yet occurred.

Standing

The court also concluded that the federal government lacked Article III standing. To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury that is traceable to the defendant’s conduct and redressable by a favorable court decision. Injuries that are merely conjectural or hypothetical are insufficient. (For more on standing, see here and here.)

The court found that the federal government’s alleged injuries depended “on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities.” The court laid out a string of contingencies required for the government to suffer harm. Michigan would need to file a climate lawsuit, survive motions to dismiss, defeat federal preemption defenses, prevail at trial, survive appellate review, and ultimately obtain judgments significant enough to affect federal energy policy. Ultimately, this sequence was too speculative for the court to get involved at the time.

Judge Jane M. Beckering’s opinion provided extensive historical context, noting that state attorneys general have pursued public interest litigation against national industries “in areas that are heavily regulated by the federal government” for decades. In each instance, whether targeting tobacco companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, or paint producers, industry defendants raised federal preemption defenses in response to actual claims brought under specific state laws. The proper venue for adjudicating those defenses, the court made clear, is in the context of actual litigation, not through preemptive federal lawsuits designed to foreclose state action altogether. 

Climate Litigation Continues

The DOJ filed similar suits against Hawaii, Vermont, and New York as part of the same executive effort. The Hawaii case mirrors Michigan’s, while the New York and Vermont suits challenge state “climate superfund” laws that impose strict liability on energy companies for climate-related harms. Stay tuned for more on these cases.

As for what to watch next in Michigan, the state filed an antitrust lawsuit against various fossil-fuel related interests just before Judge Beckering’s ruling issued. The complaint alleges that defendants conspired to delay the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and state antitrust law.

Given that Judge Beckering dismissed the case on procedural grounds, the underlying substantive questions about federal preemption remain on the table. Executive Order 14260 directs the Attorney General to stop “civil actions” that burden domestic energy production. A broad reading of that language could arguably encompass the antitrust suit, which targets fossil fuel companies and seeks damages that could affect their operations. Whether the DOJ attempts to expand its environmental litigation campaign to reach federal law claims remains to be seen.

The firm’s Energy & Cleantech and Environmental teams are monitoring administrative changes and case decisions related to federal and state energy policy. Stay tuned for further updates.