DOJ Continues Attempt to Block State-Court Climate Suits with Minnesota Complaint

On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a federal complaint seeking to enjoin Minnesota’s state-court climate lawsuit against major energy companies. DOJ contends that Minnesota’s claims—which target global greenhouse gas emissions—intrude on exclusive federal authority. The complaint asserts that Minnesota’s lawsuit violates the dormant Commerce Clause and is preempted based on uniquely federal interests, the prohibition on extraterritorial state regulation, the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), and the Foreign Affairs doctrine.

DOJ filed its complaint the same day the stay in the underlying Minnesota litigation dissolved, moving immediately to prevent what it characterizes as irreparable injury to federal sovereign interests. One week later, on May 11, 2026, DOJ filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin Minnesota from prosecuting its lawsuit. Twenty-three states have since moved for leave to file an amicus brief in support of DOJ’s motion. DOJ’s action is part of a broader federal campaign: in 2025, DOJ filed parallel complaints against Hawaii and Michigan, challenging those states’ climate-related enforcement actions based on similar preemption grounds. Both actions were dismissed for lack of standing.

For energy companies named in Minnesota’s suit, the result is a two-track litigation landscape—active state proceedings alongside a federal action seeking to halt them. More broadly, the Minnesota complaint marks an evolution in DOJ’s strategy. It appears more developed than its predecessors and designed to cure the standing deficiencies that led to dismissal of the Hawaii and Michigan actions, reflecting a more targeted effort to test the federal government’s authority to preempt state-level climate litigation.

Background: Minnesota’s State-Court Climate Action

On June 24, 2020, Minnesota filed suit in state court against a number of energy industry companies alleging consumer fraud, failure to warn, fraud, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising related to global greenhouse gas emissions.^[1] Minnesota’s suit is one of numerous actions by states, municipalities, and other public entities across the country seeking to hold energy companies liable for asserted climate-related harms. The state sought broad injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of profits attributable to the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct. In February 2025, the state court denied most motions to dismiss but stayed proceedings pending interlocutory appeals. That stay dissolved on May 4, 2026—the same day DOJ filed its federal complaint.

DOJ’s Preemption Suit

DOJ’s complaint^[2] advances five preemption theories, each aimed at establishing that Minnesota’s state-court climate claims are foreclosed by constitutional principles and federal law:

Constitutional Preemption (Federal Interests). DOJ contends that regulation of global greenhouse gas emissions implicates “uniquely federal interests”—namely, the overriding need for a uniform rule of decision on national energy policy and the basic interests of federalism. Because these interests are incompatible with the application of state law, DOJ argues Minnesota’s state-court claims are precluded.

Constitutional Preemption (Extraterritoriality). DOJ asserts that the Constitution bars states from imposing liability for conduct beyond their borders and thus Minnesota’s suit targeting emissions “no matter where in the world those emissions were released,” is preempted. DOJ further points to Iowa’s enactment of legislation shielding energy producers from climate liability as evidence that Minnesota’s suit has already generated the very interstate conflict the Constitution is designed to prevent.

Clean Air Act Preemption. DOJ asserts that the CAA vests EPA with exclusive authority to establish national air-pollution standards, thereby displacing state-law regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and precluding retroactive liability for conduct that Congress and EPA have elected not to restrict.

Foreign Affairs Preemption. Citing U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (February 2025) and formal notification of withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (February 2026), DOJ argues Minnesota’s pursuit of a “global remedy for a global issue” directly contravenes the administration’s national energy and foreign policy objectives.

Commerce Clause. Citing Ass’n for Accessible Meds. v. Ellison, 140 F.4th 957 (8th Cir. 2025), DOJ argues Minnesota’s suit—which targets fossil fuel extraction and refining occurring primarily in other states—exerts “the practical effect of extraterritorial control” over interstate commerce. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, such extraterritorial reach independently violates the dormant Commerce Clause without any threshold showing of discrimination.

Prior Federal Preemption Actions: Standing Challenges and DOJ’s Response

In 2025, DOJ filed parallel preemption complaints against Hawaii and Michigan on substantially similar grounds. Both actions were dismissed for lack of standing. In the Hawaii case, the judge found “no basis in the complaint to find that a potential lawsuit by the state of Hawaii against fossil fuel entities would predictably result in harm to the United States,” characterizing DOJ’s theories as “vague” and its alleged injuries as “too abstract and conjectural.”^[3] The Michigan federal court similarly held the federal government’s asserted injuries were “conjectural or hypothetical,” and premised on a “chain of possibilities” too “speculative and attenuated” to establish Article III standing.^[4] To date, DOJ has not appealed either decision.

The Minnesota complaint appears designed to avoid the deficiencies those courts identified. DOJ now asserts both sovereign and parens patriae standing. DOJ identifies injuries affecting the nation as a whole: increased energy costs propagated through interstate markets, interference with federal authority to establish uniform standards governing greenhouse gas emissions, and impairment of the Executive Branch’s ability to conduct a coherent national energy and foreign policy. Whether these refinements are sufficient to demonstrate standing remains a central question.

Implications for Energy Companies

DOJ’s complaint carries potential implications for energy companies named in Minnesota’s suit and the broader universe of companies facing analogous state-level climate claims:

No guarantee of swift relief. Two consecutive dismissals on standing grounds counsel against reliance on the federal action as a near-term shield. Defendants should plan for parallel state and federal proceedings. If DOJ’s preliminary injunction motion fails, Minnesota state-court discovery and motion practice will advance concurrently.

Increased litigation exposure. Dozens of state climate suits are active or dormant nationwide, including Michigan’s first-of-its-kind antitrust complaint—modeled on tobacco and opioid litigation—alleging a conspiracy to restrict renewable energy development. If DOJ’s preemption theories are rejected, the result would indicate that state-law climate claims remain viable notwithstanding federal authority over emissions policy—potentially emboldening additional actions against private companies.

Supreme Court watch. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170 (Feb. 23, 2026), which presents the single highest-stakes near-term development for state-level climate litigation. The Court’s decision on whether federal law preempts state-law claims seeking relief for climate change-related injuries could fundamentally reshape the litigation landscape—and could moot DOJ’s lawsuit in whole or in part before the district court reaches the merits. Indeed, the defendants in the underlying climate lawsuit have notified the state court of their intent to seek a stay of proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Suncor.

Conclusion

The next key test is DOJ’s preliminary injunction motion, which will determine whether its standing theories can withstand judicial scrutiny. Minnesota, however, has submitted a letter to the court requesting that it rule on the state’s forthcoming motion to dismiss before reaching the preliminary injunction motion. In response, the court ordered concurrent briefing on the preliminary injunction motion and the motion to dismiss and scheduled a hearing on both motions for July 21.

The federal preemption challenge unfolds against a broader federal deregulatory shift: EPA has rescinded the Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, and rescinded the federal automobile greenhouse gas emissions standards, with additional climate-related rulemakings anticipated this year. This regulatory activity combined with DOJ’s preemption litigation is indicating the federal government’s intent to consolidate climate policy at the federal level and foreclose state-level enforcement as an alternative pathway for asserted climate-related damages. Energy companies should monitor both tracks closely, as the interplay between federal deregulation and the outcome of pending preemption challenges may shape the scope of their regulatory and litigation exposure in the near term.