Climate Change: Federal Government and State Jurisdiction

The United States, unlike many other countries which have unitary governments, employs the federal system. As a result of  harsh British imposition in the colonies the constitutional framers were skeptical of a large government however the articles of  confederation. The founding fathers did not explicitly state if many responsibilities should fall to the state or national government or a combination of both leading to questions regarding which system is best for particular policy issues. One such issue in which the question of what type of federalism is most valid emerges is the issue of climate change. While some may argue​​ that this issue ought to be left up to the national government as the constitution does not expressly ban the national government from making environmental regulations and as it could be considered under the federal government's responsibility to make necessary and proper laws to enforce collective action, there is a much stronger case for state to state jurisdiction over environmental regulation as states are unambiguously given the power and  responsibility to “protect public health, safety [..]” and environmental regulation affects civilian health and safety, and as states are also given the power to do all things not explicitly delegated to the federal government (92). 

Over the past years a coalition of states have come into conflict with the federal government over

emissions laws for tailpipes. California passed an emissions law regulating standards of tailpipe exhaust by cars, which was initially embraced nationwide under Obama. However, during Trump’s first term, he changed the national standard. The state law of California and other states thus came into conflict with the national policy leading to a coalition of states suing the federal government. While this particular lawsuit became moot when Biden gained office, this issue calls into question the extent of jurisdiction that both federal and state governments have over environmental regulations. 

Some may argue that the power to pass environmental regulation is not one explicitly prohibited to the national government under the US constitution. This leads some to the argument that as the power is not explicitly banned, it falls under the national government's jurisdiction. Instead of the national government passing environmental regulations, it could encourage states to do so with grant funding, mitigating the negative economic impact and incentivizing states who participate. The government could also consider reducing funding for states who do not pass legislation, making it a more favorable economic choice to do so. If the federal government pursued such actions, it could effectively manage the issue without overreach preserving constitutional separation of powers, and the environment from a tragedy of the commons. 

States should have jurisdiction over environmental regulation as states are given express responsibility for protecting public health and safety. Environmental regulations affect public health and safety and thus states ought to be responsible for these regulations having the sole power to enact them. It is true that this could lead to variance in states rules, but as mentioned above incentivizing cooperation is possible without infringing states constitutional rights. State governments ultimately are more explicitly given the power to enact environmental regulation when compared with the national government.

Based on the framework that states are responsible for the majority of legislative issues, those not assigned to the federal government by the constitution, it logically follows that states should have control over environmental regulation, as with the majority of issues. States are unambiguously given the power and  responsibility to “protect public health, safety [..]” and environmental regulation affects civilian health and safety, and as states are also given the power to do all things not explicitly delegated to the federal government while the federal government's argument rest solely on not being forbidden from enacting such legislation and the need for collective action, which could, as addressed, be achieved other ways; states should then have control over environmental regulation. Since the 1930’s states have had less and less responsibility over enacting legislation, a federal overreach. States ought to lead the way with legislation protecting our environment, proudly advocating for public health and environmental safety.

---

Works Cited

Kernell, Samuel, et al. The Logic of American Politics. Sage Publications, 2025. Accessed 11 July 2026.