# Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute *State of Minnesota's 2020 consumer-protection and fraud suit against a petroleum trade association and energy companies, and the 2026 federal suit seeking to enjoin it.* *Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 62-cv-20-3837 in Minnesota state district court, is a civil action that the State of Minnesota filed in Ramsey County on June 24, 2020, through the [[Attorney General of Minnesota]], [[Keith Ellison]].[^1][^2] The defendants are a trade association and five energy companies: the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Koch Industries, Flint Hills Resources LP and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend.[^3] The Attorney General's office announced the suit as an effort to "stop deceptive practices related to climate change." The complaint pleads five state-law counts, running from consumer fraud to false statements in advertising.[^1][^4] Over the following six years the sources record jurisdictional and procedural rulings and no ruling on the merits. The defendants removed the case to federal court, and the federal court remanded it. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the remand in March 2023. The state court then denied most motions to dismiss and stayed the case pending interlocutory appeals.[^5][^6] On May 4, 2026, the day that stay dissolved, the [[United States Department of Justice]] filed *[[United States v. Minnesota]]*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, in the [[United States District Court for the District of Minnesota]]. The defendants are the State and Ellison in his official capacity, and the complaint asks the court to declare the state suit preempted and unlawful and to enjoin it.[^2][^7][^8] The federal complaint alleges that federal law exclusively governs the regulation of global greenhouse gas emissions and that Minnesota's state-law claims are preempted. It rests in part on Executive Order 14260 and on Judge Stras's 2023 concurrence in the Eighth Circuit.[^9] The federal case is pending. The Sabin Center's litigation database lists a motion to dismiss filed on May 29, 2026.[^10] ## Who The federal complaint names Ellison as the official responsible for the state case and sues him in his official capacity. The State of Minnesota is the other defendant.[^2] That complaint describes the state-case defendants as headquartered and doing substantial business outside Minnesota. It lists the American Petroleum Institute as incorporated in Washington, D.C., Exxon Mobil Corporation as incorporated in New Jersey with its principal place of business in Texas, and Koch Industries as incorporated in Kansas.[^11] The Associated Press reported in 2020 that Flint Hills Resources, a Koch Industries subsidiary, operates a refinery in Pine Bend, Minnesota.[^12] The federal remand was ordered by [[John R. Tunheim]], then Chief Judge of the District of Minnesota. An Eighth Circuit panel of Judges Grasz, Stras and Kobes affirmed in an opinion by Judge Kobes, and Judge Stras also wrote a concurrence.[^13] The Department of Justice release names John Adams, Chief of Staff and Senior Counsel of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, as the filer of the federal complaint. It quotes Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson.[^8] The complaint names the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] and the [[United States Department of State]] among the agencies on whose behalf the United States sues.[^14] ## What The federal complaint lists the state complaint's five counts:[^4] - violation of the prevention of consumer fraud act (Count I); - failure to warn under strict and negligent liability (Count II); - fraud and misrepresentation (Count III); - deceptive trade practices (Count IV); - violation of the false statements in advertising act (Count V). The Eighth Circuit identified the statutes as Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.44(1), 325F.67 and 325F.69(1). It noted that the State sued under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, which allows the Attorney General to file civil actions to enforce state law.[^15] According to the Attorney General's office, the complaint seeks an injunction, restitution and disgorgement of profits. It also seeks a corrective public education campaign "administered and controlled by an independent third party," and asks that defendants "disclose, disseminate, and publish all research" relating to climate change.[^16] When the suit was announced, ExxonMobil called it baseless and without merit, the Associated Press reported. The American Petroleum Institute's chief legal officer, Paul Afonso, said the industry had supplied affordable, reliable energy while reducing emissions.[^12] The federal complaint advances five theories:[^17] - the Constitution precludes state-law claims over global greenhouse gas emissions because those emissions implicate uniquely federal interests; - the separation of powers bars Minnesota from imposing liability for conduct in other jurisdictions; - the Clean Air Act forecloses the suit; - the foreign affairs doctrine preempts the suit; - the suit discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. Its first claim for relief is headed *Federal Preclusion Under U.S. Constitution (Uniquely Federal Interests)*.[^17] The complaint cites two documents in support of these theories. Executive Order 14260, *Protecting American Energy From State Overreach* (90 Fed. Reg. 15513, Apr. 8, 2025), directed the Attorney General to "take all appropriate action to stop" state lawsuits seeking to "dictate national energy policy." Iowa Code § 673B.2 (2026) is a statute the complaint alleges Minnesota's neighbor passed in response to the suit.[^18] The Department's release framed the filing differently from the complaint's legal theories. In it, Woodward said Minnesota officials "cannot undermine his directive by mandating that their woke climate preferences become the uniform policy of our Nation."[^8] ## When - June 24, 2020: State complaint filed in Ramsey County.[^1] - July 2020: Defendants removed the case to the federal district court.[^6] - January 19, 2021: Remand hearing. The federal complaint characterizes the State's statements there as a concession that "greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere."[^19] - March 31, 2021: District court remand decision.[^20] - March 15, 2022: Eighth Circuit appeal submitted.[^20] - March 23, 2023: Eighth Circuit affirmed the remand.[^5][^20] - June 2024: Defendants moved to dismiss in state court.[^6] - February 2025: State district court denied most of the motions to dismiss (Index No. 158).[^6] - March 2025: Defendants appealed on personal jurisdiction and anti-SLAPP issues.[^6] - April 8, 2025: Defendants moved for a stay (Index No. 178). The same date is given for Executive Order 14260.[^6][^18] - June 2025: State district court stayed all proceedings until fourteen days after final disposition of the appeals (Index No. 206).[^6] - April 15, 2026: The [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] denied the defendants' petitions for review (Index No. 233).[^7] - April 20, 2026: The [[Minnesota Court of Appeals]] entered judgment (Index No. 234).[^7] - May 4, 2026: The state stay dissolved, and the United States filed its complaint the same day.[^7][^8] - May 18, 2026: Iowa and 22 other states filed a proposed amicus brief supporting a preliminary injunction.[^10] - May 21, 2026: The court granted the states' motion to appear as amici.[^10] - May 29, 2026: Defendants' motion to dismiss filed.[^10] ## Where The state case is in Ramsey County District Court.[^1] It was removed to the District of Minnesota under No. 20-cv-1636 and remanded from there.[^19] The remand appeal was heard in the Eighth Circuit under Nos. 21-1752 and 21-8005.[^5] The interlocutory appeals went to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court.[^6] The federal complaint asserts venue in the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because at least one defendant resides in the district.[^21] ## Why The Attorney General's office stated the suit's purpose as accountability. Ellison said, "it's my job and my duty to hold them accountable." The release also quoted the complaint's position that the parties who profited should "bear the costs of those impacts, rather than Minnesota taxpayers."[^22] The Department of Justice stated its purpose as stopping Minnesota's attempt to override "the policy choices of the United States and other states to make energy affordable and reliable."[^8] The federal complaint states that the United States sues to vindicate the supremacy of federal law over the regulation of global greenhouse gas emissions and "to redress its irreparable injuries."[^23] The documented outputs are narrower than either stated purpose. As of the sources' dates, the state suit had produced rulings on forum, on motions to dismiss and on a stay, but no merits ruling. The federal suit had produced an amicus order and a pending motion to dismiss.[^5][^6][^10] The sources record the parties' stated purposes; they do not establish motives beyond them. ## How The Eighth Circuit held the following:[^24] - federal common law on transboundary pollution does not completely preempt Minnesota's claims; - federal law is not a necessary element of any claim, so the *Grable* exception does not apply; - no Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act jurisdiction exists; - the connection between the claims and federal direction "is still too remote" for federal officer removal; - a suit under § 8.31 is not a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court quoted the district court's finding that the companies "do not claim that any federal officer directed their respective marketing or sales activities."[^24] Judge Stras agreed that the suit did not arise under federal law as the law then stood, adding, "I write separately, however, to explain why it should." He wrote: "There is no hiding the obvious, and Minnesota does not even try: it seeks a global remedy for a global issue."[^25] The federal complaint builds on that concurrence and on *City of New York v. Chevron Corp.*, 993 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2021).[^9] The Eighth Circuit had cited the Second Circuit decision with a "But cf." signal against the five circuits whose remand rulings it joined.[^5] ## How much Ellison did not specify a dollar figure when announcing the suit, saying "it's going to be a lot." The Associated Press reported his comparison to Minnesota's $7 billion 1998 settlement with the tobacco industry.[^12] The Attorney General's office noted that Minnesota had prosecuted the tobacco industry under former Attorney General [[Skip Humphrey]]. It also asserted that ExxonMobil and Koch "earned hundreds of billions of dollars in profits" during the period of the alleged deception.[^22] The federal complaint alleges that Minnesota's suit raises energy costs for consumers nationwide.[^26] ## How many - Six defendants and five counts in the state case.[^3][^4] - "Climate change" is a label that, Judge Stras wrote, appears in the state complaint over 200 times.[^25] - At least 15 other plaintiffs had brought similar suits as of June 24, 2020, according to the Attorney General's office.[^1] - The federal complaint alleges that fewer than a dozen such suits were filed before 2020 and that dozens more have been filed since.[^27] - The federal complaint lists four earlier United States suits against states: New York (No. 1:25-cv-03656), Vermont (No. 2:25-cv-463), Hawaii (No. 1:25-cv-00179) and Michigan (No. 1:25-cv-496). The Department's release describes these as filed by the Environment and Natural Resources Division the year before.[^27][^8] - In 2022, sixteen states and the District of Columbia appeared as amici supporting Minnesota in the Eighth Circuit.[^28] In 2026, Iowa and 22 other states sought to appear as amici supporting the United States.[^10] ## Notes [^1]: Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, *AG Ellison sues ExxonMobil, Koch Industries & American Petroleum Institute for deceiving, defrauding Minnesotans about climate change* (June 24, 2020) — filing date, Ramsey County venue, stated purpose, and count of at least 15 other plaintiffs. https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/06/24_ExxonKochAPI.asp [^2]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, United States v. State of Minnesota and Keith Ellison, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 10, 20–21 — state docket No. 62-cv-20-3837, relief sought, and defendants. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^3]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 21-1752 (Mar. 23, 2023), caption and n.1 — the six defendants. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^4]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶ 25 — the state complaint's five counts. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^5]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, Nos. 21-1752, 21-8005 (Mar. 23, 2023), Parts I, V — removal, remand, affirmance, and circuit authorities. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^6]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 29, 35–39 — removal, motions to dismiss, appeals, and stay (Index Nos. 158, 178, 206). https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^7]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 41–44 — April 2026 appellate dispositions, dissolution of the stay, and same-day filing. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^8]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *Justice Department Files Complaint Against Minnesota Over Its Attempt to Override Federal Law*, Press Release No. 26-441 (May 4, 2026) — the filing, stated aims, officials quoted, filer, and 2025 suits against four states. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-minnesota-over-its-attempt-override-federal-law [^9]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 1–10, 48 — preemption allegations, reliance on the Stras concurrence and *City of New York*, and Executive Order 14260. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^10]: Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, *United States v. Minnesota*, 26-cv-2456 (D. Minn.), Climate Litigation Database (tracker) — May 18, May 21 and May 29, 2026 docket entries. https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/united-states-v-minnesota_bb46 [^11]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶ 24 — defendants' places of incorporation and business. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^12]: Associated Press via MPR News, *Minnesota sues oil companies, institute over climate change* (June 24, 2020) — defendants' responses, Flint Hills refinery, and Ellison's damages comment. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/06/24/minnesota-sues-oil-companies-institute-over-climate-change [^13]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 21-1752 (Mar. 23, 2023), panel line and n.2 — panel, authoring judge, and district judge. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^14]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶ 19 — EPA and Department of State as agencies represented. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^15]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 21-1752 (Mar. 23, 2023), n.3 and Part IV — statutes pleaded and Minn. Stat. § 8.31. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^16]: Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, *AG Ellison sues ExxonMobil, Koch Industries & American Petroleum Institute…* (June 24, 2020) — relief sought as described by the office. https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/06/24_ExxonKochAPI.asp [^17]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 4–8, 61–68 — five legal theories and Count I. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^18]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 5, 9, 48 — Executive Order 14260 and Iowa Code § 673B.2. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^19]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 30–31 — January 19, 2021 remand hearing in No. 20-cv-1636. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^20]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 21-1752 (Mar. 23, 2023), cover page and Part III — submission and filing dates, and the March 31, 2021 district court decision. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^21]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 17–18 — jurisdiction and venue. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^22]: Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, *AG Ellison sues ExxonMobil, Koch Industries & American Petroleum Institute…* (June 24, 2020) — Ellison's statement, the complaint quotation, profits assertion, and tobacco precedent. https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/06/24_ExxonKochAPI.asp [^23]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶ 3 — stated purpose of the federal suit. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^24]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 21-1752 (Mar. 23, 2023), Parts II–IV — holdings on complete preemption, *Grable*, OCSLA, § 1442, and CAFA. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^25]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 21-1752 (Mar. 23, 2023) (Stras, J., concurring) — concurrence text. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^26]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶ 16 — allegation on energy costs. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^27]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (May 4, 2026), ¶¶ 45–46, 50 — counts of climate suits and earlier United States suits against four states. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^28]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 21-1752 (Mar. 23, 2023), caption — amici on behalf of appellee. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf