The Justice Department has sued Morris Township, New Jersey, over a local ordinance that bans natural gas, propane, and fuel oil infrastructure in some new construction, arguing the rule unlawfully intrudes on national energy policy and raises costs for families.
The lawsuit targets an ordinance in Morris Township that bars natural gas, propane, and fuel oil infrastructure and appliances in certain new buildings. Federal lawyers say the local rule prevents access to an affordable energy option that many households rely on for cooking and heat.
The 14-page complaint lays out the department’s view that the ban not only drives up consumer costs but undercuts the country’s energy position. “But natural gas is often the lowest cost and most efficient energy source for everyday uses—outperforming electric on both expense and lifecycle emissions,” the 14-page lawsuit said.
The Justice Department framed the filing as part of a broader push to protect consumer choice and keep energy affordable, tying the action to a promise from President Donald J. Trump about restoring consumer freedom and cutting costs. “This latest litigation in New Jersey follows two successful lawsuits in California as this Department of Justice fights to make energy more affordable for Americans,” said former Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Radical environmentalist policies that drive up costs and limit consumer choice will not stand.”
Officials argue that when local governments try to outlaw common appliances and the infrastructure that supports them, they step on federal authority. “The Department brought this lawsuit to protect American citizens from the Township abandoned by kowtowing to progressive fearmongering in passing its natural gas ban,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward.
Across the country, some city and local leaders have favored electrifying new construction and phasing out gas hookups, often citing environmental goals. The Justice Department says those local choices conflict with federal jurisdiction over appliances and infrastructure and ultimately hurt ordinary people who face higher bills or fewer options.
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate made the department’s legal position blunt: “The Township’s illegal interference with national energy policy must be stopped,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate. “Congress preempted local efforts to outlaw gas stoves and other appliances Americans count on and prefer. This case is about upholding that choice.”
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson emphasized the federal role and consumer impact in direct terms. “Where the federal government has exclusive authority to regulate appliances and infrastructure, we will fight state and local overreach,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Banning natural gas is illegal. It makes heating, cooking, drying, and other life functions more unaffordable for consumers. This Administration is committed to unleashing American energy and empowering Americans.”
The complaint notes prior actions the department has taken in other states where similar local bans were challenged and later rescinded. In those cases, the department argued the bans were unlawful and the municipalities reversed course rather than continue expensive litigation that risked harming residents.
From a Republican perspective, the case reads as a defense of economic common sense and consumer freedom against activist local measures. The argument is that national rules should protect everyday choices and the lower-cost energy options many Americans prefer, rather than let a patchwork of bans force higher expenses on families and businesses.
The legal fight in New Jersey will test federal preemption and how courts balance local climate ambitions against national authority over appliances and energy infrastructure. Whatever the result, the case makes clear the Justice Department intends to push back on what it calls state and local overreach when it believes federal law or consumer interests are at stake.
