DOJ sues Minnesota over climate lawsuit, says it intrudes on federal authority

Kristoffer Tigue, The Minnesota Star Tribune on May 4, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Minnesota over the state’s lawsuit that aims to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change.

It’s the latest legal challenge to the state’s case, which alleges that Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and the American Petroleum Institute misled the public by hiding and downplaying evidence that burning fossil fuels heats the planet.

In the complaint, filed May 4 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the DOJ attorneys argue that Minnesota’s lawsuit attempts to “usurp exclusive federal authority to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions” under the Clean Air Act. If enforced, they said, Minnesota’s lawsuit would “unreasonably burden” domestic energy production and threaten national security.

“Minnesota’s attempt to impose a national regulation on global greenhouse gas emissions not only is preempted by federal law, but also undermines affordable and reliable American energy, weakening the national and economic security of the United States,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a news release announcing the DOJ’s complaint.

Minnesota’s suit, filed in 2020, is among dozens of pending cases filed by cities, counties and states that argue oil companies should be held accountable for the economic damages caused by climate change. Research shows that extreme weather, exacerbated by rising global temperatures, has caused more than $3 trillion in damage across the United States since 1980.

The suits, if successful, could have broad ramifications, including forcing oil companies to pay states billions of dollars in damages and requiring warning labels on petroleum products to inform consumers about their connection to climate change.

But the cases, including Minnesota’s, have yet to go to trial. Many have been tied up for years in challenges, including questions over whether they should be heard in state or federal court. In January, a federal appeals court denied a motion by the fossil fuel companies to throw out Minnesota’s suit.

In a statement to the Minnesota Star Tribune, state Attorney General Keith Ellison called the DOJ’s complaint a “frivolous and meritless lawsuit” that he believes will be “dismissed immediately.”

“In 2020, I sued Big Oil for lying to Minnesotans about the true causes of climate change, then sticking us with the bill for the harms it is causing,” Ellison said. “Six years later, we are still waiting to go to trial because Big Oil has pulled every procedural trick in the book to delay facing the consequences of their unlawful actions.”

While it could be years before Minnesota’s case goes to trial, its fate could ultimately be determined by a similar lawsuit filed by the city of Boulder, Colorado, against Exxon Mobil and Suncor, said Michael Gerrard, founding director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

That case similarly accuses the oil companies of knowingly contributing to climate change while concealing the dangers of their products. The DOJ also sued the city over the issue of preemption in the case. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of Boulder in that case last year, which the DOJ then appealed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal, and the case is expected to be reviewed by the high court later this fall.

It’s unclear just how SCOTUS will rule, Gerrard said, noting that courts have ruled in both directions regarding the question of preemption. Some judges have ruled in favor of the cities or states, like in Boulder’s case, while others have sided with the federal government, he said.

For all those rulings, Gerrard said, the losing party has filed an appeal, which is why the matter might ultimately be settled by the SCOTUS hearing.

If SCOTUS decides the state’s lawsuits aren’t preempted by federal authority, Gerrard added, the cases will still need to go to trial to address the main argument of who’s responsible for the costs of climate change.