Filed Date: April 30, 2025
Closed Date: Jan. 24, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the state of Michigan's plans to bring a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies to hold them liable for their contribution to climate change and its effects.
On April 30, 2025, the United States filed this lawsuit against Michigan, its Governor, and its Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The DOJ argued that Michigan's lawsuit was pre-empted by the Clean Air Act and the federal government's control over foreign affairs, that it would constitute unconstitutional regulation by a state of territory outside the state, and that it would violate the Interstate Commerce and Foreign Commerce Clauses. Specifically, the DOJ argued that through the Clean Air Act, the Congress anointed the federal EPA as the regulator of greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore, under the Supremacy Clause, states were pre-empted from regulating greenhouse gas emissions through state law. The DOJ asked the court to declare that Michigan's state law claims were unconstitutional, and to permanently enjoin Michigan from taking actions to assert Michigan's state law claims.
On June 20, 2025, Michigan moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it entrenched on state sovereignty and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Michigan argued in the alternative that judicial review should be deferred until it could decide whether to file any of its claims under Michigan state law.
On July 11, 2025, the United States filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint did not name any new parties, causes of action, or forms of requested relief. However, the amended complaint significantly expanded the United States' factual allegations regarding specific steps Michigan has taken toward litigation, including retention of private counsel and requests for proposals to sue fossil fuel companies. Since the amended complaint superseded the original complaint, the court dismissed Michigan's motion to dismiss as moot on July 15, 2025.
On July 31, 2025, Michigan again moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the matter was not ripe, depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Michigan states that it has not filed any climate-related lawsuits against any fossil fuel industry entity. In addition, even if Michigan does file a climate-related suit in the future, it’s unclear who will be sued, where the claims will be brought, and whether the claims will be based in federal or state law. Without specific claims before the court to assess, Michigan argues the court can’t properly determine if the state action is preempted or unconstitutional.
After briefing by both parties, the Court issued its opinion on January 24, 2026, granting Michigan's motion to dismiss based on the "federal government’s failure to carry its burden and establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction." The Court found that the issues the United States brought up in their complaint were lacking in ripeness, as the suit was contingent on future events and the state-law claims they sought to challenge were non-existent at the time of filing. Similarly, the Court held that the United States failed a second ripeness test by not demonstrating how deferring review of this matter would impose hardship on them, despite their claim of uncertainty arising from the possibility of an impending lawsuit. In addressing the United States' attempted claim that it is exempt as a sovereign from the "normal rules of justiciability and does not need to prove that it is altering its primary conduct to show hardship," the Court did not find binding authority indicating this exemption. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the United States lacked standing to bring its claims, as its alleged harms were hypothetical and anticipatory rather than concrete, and it failed to show a traceable causal connection between Michigan’s conduct and its alleged injury.
Consequently, Judge Beckering entered judgment in Michigan's favor and dismissed the case.
Summary Authors
Scott Shuchart (5/8/2025)
Matt Petrillo (7/23/2025)
Allison Opheim (11/15/2025)
Maddy Ligon (1/29/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70022745/parties/united-states-v-state-of-michigan/
Adams, John Kenneth (Michigan)
Gustafson, Adam R.F. (Michigan)
Heminger, Justin (Michigan)
Stander, Robert Nolan (Michigan)
Kuhl, Richard S. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70022745/united-states-v-state-of-michigan/
Last updated Feb. 22, 2026, 12:42 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations By the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 30, 2025
Closing Date: Jan. 24, 2026
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The United States of America
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Western District of Michigan 1:25-cv-00496
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: