Is climate superfund bill in trouble?

Good morning!

Does a ruling out of federal court in New York spell doom for a big environmental bill floating around Trenton?

A judge in Syracuse on Monday struck down a landmark New York law that aimed to tax polluters to pay for billions in projects intended to protect the state from climate change. The state law improperly preempts federal law, the judge said.

Republicans and business groups here in New Jersey cheered the decision, saying the New York law is virtually indistinguishable from a New Jersey bill — first called the Climate Superfund Act, and now the Polluters Pay to Make New Jersey More Affordable Act — that has failed to get enough traction in the Legislature to make it to a final vote.

“We urge the supporters of this legislation in New Jersey to recognize that this bill is unfair, punitive to consumers, damaging to New Jersey jobs, and now, clearly unconstitutional,” said Ray Cantor, a spokesman for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association.

Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn said the judge, an Obama appointee, fell for “Bil Oil’s argument.”

“This is a bad decision, based off a controversial ruling, and should be immediately appealed. It will do nothing to slow other states from pursuing climate superfund laws or stop the growing momentum to make polluters pay,” Henn said.

Courts: New Jersey and the federal government formed an unlikely alliance Monday in a lawsuit targeting Amazon for what the plaintiffs call illegal advertising practices. The lawsuit, which was joined by nearly two dozen other states, accuses the e-commerce giant of overcharging more than 500,000 businesses for more than $20 billion. “For years, Amazon has been misrepresenting how it sets the prices to advertise on the most coveted real estate on its website. It promised competitive auctions to set prices and then quietly replaced those results with inflated prices designed to pad its own profits,” New Jersey Attorney General Jen Davenport said in a statement. Amazon denies the claims.

More: The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday against two out-of-state doctors and their patients who argued the physicians should not have to get New Jersey licenses to practice telemedicine here. The three-court panel said New Jersey’s law requiring in-state licenses for such appointments does not place substantial burdens on out-of-state doctors.

NJ-07: A federal judge on Monday ruled against Lana Leguía, a Libertarian who sought to challenge Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R) this fall but will likely not be on November’s ballot because she improperly used New York residents to circulate nominating petitions. The judge said he has no jurisdiction here but said Leguía “has been wronged” by state election officials who bungled the case. Worth noting, I think, that Leguía ran against Kean in 2024 and won a sum total of 3,784 votes out of 431,398 cast, less than 1% of the total. Even in the incredibly close 2020 and 2022 races in this district, the winning margin was larger than that.

Politics: This story has no New Jersey connection, but it’s the type of story I bet we’ll see here soon: Kalshi announced that it is banning former Rep. George Santos (R) from its platform and fining a Republican North Carolina House candidate after federal regulators accused them of profiting by placing bets on themselves. In Santos’ case, he is accused of making more than $17K by placing bets on whether he would attend the State of the Union address. He wrote social media posts suggesting he would be at the speech even as he bought and sold contracts saying he would not attend the event, regulators said. I have no experience using Kalshi and almost no experiencing betting at all, but this kind of activity … is objectively insane, right? People do this?

Trump: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that President Trump can proceed with aboveground construction on his $400M White House ballroom, dismissing a lower-court ruling that said otherwise. The historic preservationists who are suing to stop construction likely do not have standing, the majority wrote. Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberal justices in the minority, wrote in a dissent that the construction job is “likely unlawful” because Congress did not approve it. Laws — who needs ‘em?!