Vermont's Climate Superfund: Can the Green Mountain State Afford the Legal Fight?
A September 16,2025 article in the Boston Globe reports that the Trump administration is going on the offensive in a lawsuit against Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act
Vermont recently made history by passing the Climate Superfund Act, the first "polluter pays" law in the nation designed to make fossil fuel companies pay for the damage caused by climate change.
The idea is simple: the companies that contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions should help cover the costs of climate-related disasters like floods and storms.
But this groundbreaking law was immediately met with a major legal challenge from the Trump administration, sparking a national debate and raising a critical question for Vermonters: Can the state afford this fight?
What is the Climate Superfund Act?
Signed into law in 2024, Vermont's Act 129, known as the Climate Superfund Act, creates a program to hold the world's largest fossil fuel companies financially responsible for their historical contributions to climate change.
The law requires the Vermont State Treasurer, in collaboration with the Agency of Natural Resources, to compile a report detailing the costs of climate change impacts to the state between 1995 and 2024. This includes everything from repairing flood-damaged roads and bridges to upgrading stormwater systems and funding public health programs related to extreme weather.
Once the total cost is calculated, the state will assess fees on the companies responsible for emitting more than one billion metric tons of greenhouse gases during that period. The money collected would go into a "Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program Fund" to be used for climate adaptation and resilience projects across Vermont.
Supporters, like the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), argue this is a matter of fairness. They contend that for decades, fossil fuel companies knew their products were causing climate change but continued to profit while the public shouldered the cleanup costs.
The Federal Lawsuit: A National Challenge
Shortly after the law was enacted, the Trump administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Vermont, arguing that the state's act is unconstitutional and a violation of federal law.
The core arguments from the DOJ's official complaint are:
Federal Preemption: The administration argues that federal laws, like the Clean Air Act, already regulate greenhouse gas emissions. They claim that Vermont's law oversteps its authority and interferes with a comprehensive national energy policy. In their view, only the federal government can regulate interstate and international emissions.
Constitutional Violations: The lawsuit alleges that the act violates the U.S. Constitution by attempting to regulate business conduct that happened outside of Vermont's borders. They argue it also places an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Essentially, the federal government's position is that states cannot create their own patchwork of laws to penalize global energy companies for climate change, as this should be handled at the national level.
Is Vermont Being Singled Out?
While the lawsuit feels like a direct hit on Vermont, it's important to note that the state is not alone. The Trump administration has launched a coordinated legal offensive against other states with similar "polluter pays" initiatives.
According to reporting from Grist, the DOJ has filed nearly identical lawsuits against New York, Hawaii, and Michigan. Several other states, including Maryland, Massachusetts, and California, have been considering similar legislation.
This context shows that the legal challenge is less about Vermont specifically and more about a broader federal strategy to block state-level efforts to assign financial liability for climate change to fossil fuel companies. The administration is aiming to set a national precedent that would prevent these types of laws from taking root anywhere in the country.
The Million-Dollar Question: Who's Paying for This?
Defending a state law against the full force of the federal government is incredibly expensive, a fact not lost on state leaders. Governor Phil Scott, who allowed the bill to become law without his signature, expressed significant reservations, warning of a costly and protracted legal battle that Vermont taxpayers would have to fund.
Here’s how the costs are being managed:
Taxpayer Funding: The Vermont Legislature has allocated $600,000 for fiscal year 2025 and $350,000 for fiscal year 2026 to defend the law and fund the required climate cost reports. However, there is already a pending request for an additional $1.5 million to hire outside experts, highlighting the escalating costs.
Pro Bono Legal Help: Vermont isn't fighting alone. Key environmental and agricultural groups have stepped in to help. The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont (NOFA-VT) have officially intervened in the case, providing their own legal teams to support the state's defense. This support, which includes powerhouse attorneys from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), is provided at no direct cost to taxpayers and brings invaluable expertise to the table.
This combination of state funding and robust external support is Vermont's strategy for weathering the expensive legal storm.
What Happens Next?
The lawsuit has been filed in federal court, and the legal process is just beginning. Here’s what to expect:
The case will slowly make its way through the federal court system, starting at the district court level. Both sides will file motions, engage in discovery, and present their arguments to a judge. This process alone can take months, if not years.
Regardless of who wins the initial round, an appeal is almost certain. The losing side will likely take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals and, potentially, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The outcome of Vermont's case—and the similar ones in New York, Hawaii, and Michigan—will have massive implications. If the states win, it could open the door for more states to pass "polluter pays" laws, creating a powerful new tool for climate accountability.
If the federal government wins, it could permanently shut down this state-led approach, affirming that climate regulation is solely the responsibility of Washington, D.C.
For now, Vermont remains at the epicenter of a legal battle that will define the future of climate responsibility in America.