# Executive Order 14260 *A 2025 presidential order directing federal action against state climate lawsuits, cited as the basis for the United States' May 2026 complaint against Minnesota.* Executive Order 14260, *Protecting American Energy From State Overreach*, is cited in the United States' complaint against [[Minnesota]] as Exec. Order No. 14260, §§ 1–2, 90 Fed. Reg. 15513 (Apr. 8, 2025).[^1] The complaint states that the President issued the order in April 2025 for the United States Attorney General to "take all appropriate action to stop" the continuation of lawsuits filed by States seeking to "dictate national energy policy."[^2] The [[United States Department of Justice]] identifies the order as President Donald J. Trump's and describes its May 4, 2026 complaint against Minnesota as advancing it.[^3] As the complaint quotes it, the order names its object as an "affordable and reliable domestic energy supply," which it calls "essential to the national and economic security of the United States, as well as our foreign policy."[^1] The outputs documented in the record are federal lawsuits against States. The Department states that its Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) filed complaints in 2025 against Hawaii, Michigan, New York and Vermont.[^3] On May 4, 2026 it filed *[[United States v. Minnesota]]*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, in the [[United States District Court for the District of Minnesota]], on the day the stay in Minnesota's own climate suit dissolved.[^4] The complaint alleges that Minnesota's 2020 state-court suit against ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, the American Petroleum Institute and affiliated companies is preempted by federal law and violates the separation of powers, the Clean Air Act, the Foreign Affairs doctrine and the Commerce Clause. It asks the court to declare the suit unlawful and enjoin it.[^5] The case is pending. As of the entries shown in the Sabin Center's Climate Litigation Database, Iowa and 22 other States were granted leave on May 21, 2026 to appear as amici in support of the United States, and the defendants moved to dismiss on May 29, 2026.[^6] ## Who The order was issued by the President. The complaint describes it as addressed to the United States Attorney General.[^2] The United States brings the Minnesota suit on its own behalf, on behalf of its citizens, and on behalf of its executive agencies. Among those agencies the complaint names the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]], which administers the Clean Air Act, and the [[United States Department of State]], which conducts foreign affairs.[^7] The defendants are the State of Minnesota and [[Keith Ellison]], the [[Minnesota Attorney General]]. Ellison is sued in his official capacity as the official responsible for the state case.[^7] The Department's release quotes Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of ENRD. It states that ENRD Chief of Staff and Senior Counsel John Adams filed the complaint.[^3] ## What The text of the order is not itself in the record. Its language appears here as the complaint reproduces it. As quoted there, the order states that "American energy dominance is threatened" when State and local governments "seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities."[^1][^2] It adds that when States "target or discriminate against out-of-State energy producers by imposing significant barriers to interstate and international trade," "American energy suffers."[^2] It states that such lawsuits "weaken our national security and devastate Americans by driving up energy costs for families coast-to-coast." It sets those lawsuits against the Administration's "objective to unleash American energy."[^2] The complaint also quotes the order's description of climate lawsuits as "ideologically motivated."[^8] ## When The complaint cites the order to the *Federal Register* of April 8, 2025.[^1] It describes the order as consistent with two directives of January 20, 2025: - Exec. Order No. 14156, *Declaring a National Energy Emergency* (90 Fed. Reg. 8433). - Exec. Order No. 14154, *Unleashing American Energy* (90 Fed. Reg. 8353).[^9] The complaint places the order within a federal record that spans several administrations. It recounts the following steps: - Congress enacted the Global Climate Protection Act in 1987. - President Bush signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, and the Senate approved it unanimously. - President Clinton never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate. - President Obama signed the Paris Agreement in September 2016 without submitting it for ratification. - President Trump issued Exec. Order No. 13783 on March 28, 2017. - The United States deposited a notice of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2019. - President Biden announced on February 19, 2021 that he had rejoined. - President Trump withdrew the United States again by Exec. Order No. 14162. The complaint dates that withdrawal to February 13, 2025, while citing 90 Fed. Reg. 8455 (Jan. 20, 2025).[^10] The complaint adds that a January 2026 presidential memorandum declared continued participation in the Framework Convention contrary to United States interests. It states that the withdrawal notified in February 2026 takes effect in February 2027.[^10] ## Where The record names five federal suits brought under the national energy policy the order states. The complaint lists four from 2025 as examples of the United States acting against States it says are setting national energy policy: - *United States v. New York*, No. 1:25-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y.). - *United States v. Vermont*, No. 2:25-cv-463 (D. Vt.). - *United States v. Hawaii*, No. 1:25-cv-00179 (D. Hawaii). - *United States v. Michigan*, No. 1:25-cv-496 (W.D. Mich.).[^11] The fifth suit, against Minnesota, was filed in the District of Minnesota. The complaint states that venue is proper there because at least one defendant resides in the District.[^5] ## How The complaint carries out the order's directive through a federal suit to stop a state-court proceeding. Its Count I is titled *Federal Preclusion Under U.S. Constitution (Uniquely Federal Interests)*. Count I invokes the Supremacy Clause and alleges that interstate and global pollution "is exclusively governed by federal law." It further alleges that Minnesota's suit "seeks to use state law where federal law controls the rule of decision."[^12] The complaint states that the United States will seek preliminary injunctive relief. Much of its argument relies on the concurrence of Judge Stras in the Eighth Circuit's 2023 decision in the Minnesota case.[^5] The majority opinion in that decision was written by Judge Kobes. The panel held that Minnesota's claims were not removable to federal court. It adopted the Tenth Circuit's view that a conflict between state claims and federal cost-benefit determinations "speaks to a potential defense on the merits of those claims, specifically a preemption defense, rather than to the jurisdictional issue."[^13] Judge Stras agreed that "as the law stands now" the suit does not arise under federal law. He wrote separately "to explain why it should."[^14] ## How much The record contains no dollar figure for the order or for the federal suit. The complaint alleges that Minnesota's lawsuit "raises energy costs for consumers" nationwide, but it gives no amount.[^15] The Eighth Circuit concurrence summarized Minnesota's 2020 complaint as seeking an injunction, restitution and disgorgement of profits.[^14] The Attorney General's release adds a request that the defendants "fund a corrective public education campaign in Minnesota relating to the issue of climate change."[^16] The release also states that ExxonMobil and Koch "earned hundreds of billions of dollars in profits" during the period the complaint describes.[^16] At filing, Ellison did not specify an amount. The Associated Press reported that he said "it's going to be a lot" and compared the sum to Minnesota's $7 billion 1998 settlement with the tobacco industry.[^17] ## How many - **Federal suits against States under the order's policy named in the record:** five. These are Hawaii, Michigan, New York and Vermont in 2025, and Minnesota in 2026.[^3][^11] - **State and local climate suits, by the complaint's account:** "fewer than a dozen" before 2020 and "dozens of additional cases" since.[^18] - **State and local climate suits, by the Attorney General's account:** at least 15 other plaintiffs had brought similar suits as of June 24, 2020.[^16] - **States supporting Minnesota at the Eighth Circuit:** 16 States and the District of Columbia appeared as amici on Minnesota's side.[^13] - **States supporting the United States in 2026:** Iowa and 22 other States sought to appear as amici.[^6] - **Counts in Minnesota's state complaint:** five.[^19] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who Attorney General Keith Ellison filed the state suit on behalf of the State and its residents.[^16] The defendants are: - the American Petroleum Institute; - Exxon Mobil Corporation; - ExxonMobil Oil Corporation; - Koch Industries; - Flint Hills Resources LP; and - Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend. The federal complaint places the defendants' incorporation and principal business in Washington, D.C., New Jersey, New York, Kansas, Delaware and Texas.[^19] [[John R. Tunheim]], then Chief Judge of the District of Minnesota, granted remand. An Eighth Circuit panel of Judges Grasz, Stras and Kobes affirmed.[^13] ### What The Attorney General's release described the suit's purpose as to "stop deceptive practices related to climate change."[^16] The Eighth Circuit found that the suit pleaded "exclusively state law claims." Those claims are common-law fraud and violations of Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.44(1), 325F.67 and 325F.69(1). The court noted that the State brought them under the Attorney General's authority in Minn. Stat. § 8.31, and that the complaint contains no nuisance claim.[^13] The federal complaint alleges that the suit is an effort to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions. It states that at a January 19, 2021 remand hearing Minnesota conceded that "greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere."[^20] It also cites the U.S. Energy Information Administration for the statement that "Minnesota has no fossil fuel reserves or production."[^19] ### When - **June 24, 2020:** the State filed suit in Ramsey County.[^16][^17] - **July 2020:** the defendants removed the case to federal court.[^20] - **March 31, 2021:** the federal district court ordered remand.[^13] - **March 15, 2022:** the Eighth Circuit heard argument.[^13] - **March 23, 2023:** the Eighth Circuit affirmed remand in Nos. 21-1752 and 21-8005.[^13] - **June 2024:** the defendants moved to dismiss in state court.[^20] - **February 2025:** the state court denied most of those motions.[^20] - **March 2025:** the defendants appealed.[^20] - **April 8, 2025:** the defendants moved for a stay. This is the date the complaint gives for the order's *Federal Register* citation.[^1][^20] - **June 2025:** the state court stayed all proceedings pending the appeals.[^20] - **April 15, 2026:** the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] denied review.[^20] - **April 20, 2026:** the [[Minnesota Court of Appeals]] entered judgment.[^20] - **May 4, 2026:** the stay dissolved, and the United States sued the same day.[^4] - **May 18, 2026:** a proposed amicus brief from Iowa and 22 other States was filed, as recorded in the Sabin Center's database.[^6] - **May 21, 2026:** the court granted the amicus motion, as recorded in the database.[^6] - **May 29, 2026:** the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, as recorded in the database.[^6] ### Where The state case, *Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 62-cv-20-3837, was filed in Ramsey County District Court.[^17][^20] ### Why Each side's officials stated their reasons in their own releases. Ellison said: "When corporations and trade associations break the law and hurt Minnesotans, it's my job and my duty to hold them accountable."[^16] Woodward said that Minnesota officials "cannot undermine his directive by mandating that their woke climate preferences become the uniform policy of our Nation." Gustafson said that "Minnesota's attempted overreach would undermine our economic and national security to advance the climate agenda of politicians and activists."[^3] The Associated Press reported that an ExxonMobil spokesperson called the state suit part of a "coordinated, politically motivated campaign against energy companies."[^17] ## Notes [^1]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief*, United States v. State of Minnesota, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶ 9 (filed May 4, 2026) — the complaint's citation of Exec. Order No. 14260, 90 Fed. Reg. 15513 (Apr. 8, 2025), and its quotation of the order's stated purpose. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^2]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶ 48 (filed May 4, 2026) — the order's directive to the Attorney General and its § 1 language, as quoted by the complaint. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^3]: 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 advances the order; ENRD's 2025 complaints against four States; officials quoted; filing attorney. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-minnesota-over-its-attempt-override-federal-law [^4]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 41–44 (filed May 4, 2026) — the state appeals were exhausted, the stay dissolved May 4, 2026, and the United States sued that day. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^5]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1–18 (filed May 4, 2026) — the claims alleged, the relief sought including preliminary injunction, reliance on the Stras concurrence, jurisdiction and venue. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^6]: Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, *United States v. Minnesota*, Climate Litigation Database (entries May 18–29, 2026) — amicus brief of Iowa and 22 other States, the order granting amicus leave, and the motion to dismiss. https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/united-states-v-minnesota_bb46 [^7]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 19–21 (filed May 4, 2026) — the parties; EPA and the State Department; Ellison sued in his official capacity. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^8]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶ 51 (filed May 4, 2026) — the order's description of climate lawsuits, as quoted. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^9]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶ 49 (filed May 4, 2026) — Exec. Orders 14156 and 14154 (Jan. 20, 2025) described as consistent with the order. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^10]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 55–60 (filed May 4, 2026) — the federal climate-policy sequence from 1987 to 2026, including Exec. Orders 13783 and 14162 and the Framework Convention withdrawal. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^11]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶ 50 (filed May 4, 2026) — dockets of the 2025 federal suits against New York, Vermont, Hawaii and Michigan. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^12]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 61–68 (filed May 4, 2026) — Count I, federal preclusion under the Supremacy Clause. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^13]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, Nos. 21-1752, 21-8005 (filed Mar. 23, 2023) — the panel, amici, claims and statutes, remand by Chief Judge Tunheim, and the holding that the claims are not removable. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^14]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute*, No. 21-1752 (Stras, J., concurring) (filed Mar. 23, 2023) — the concurrence's view of the suit and the relief sought. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/03/211752P.pdf [^15]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶ 16 (filed May 4, 2026) — the allegation that the state suit raises energy costs. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^16]: 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) — the filing, claims, relief requested, profits assertion, at least 15 other plaintiffs, and Ellison's statement. https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/06/24_ExxonKochAPI.asp [^17]: Associated Press via MPR News, *Minnesota sues oil companies, institute over climate change* (June 24, 2020) — the Ramsey County filing, Ellison on damages, and ExxonMobil's response. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/06/24/minnesota-sues-oil-companies-institute-over-climate-change [^18]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 45–46 (filed May 4, 2026) — the complaint's account of climate suits before and since 2020. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^19]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 22–25 (filed May 4, 2026) — the EIA statement, the defendants and their domiciles, and the five counts of the state complaint. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline [^20]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02456, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 29–43 (filed May 4, 2026) — the procedural history of No. 62-cv-20-3837 from removal through the stay, including the January 19, 2021 remand hearing. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1439311/dl?inline