The Maryland Supreme Court dismissed local lawsuits against fossil fuel companies that demanded payouts over climate change on Tuesday.
Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County filed 3 separate lawsuits against 26 multinational fossil fuel companies for damages caused by global greenhouse gas emissions. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled against the three and said the regulation of interstate pollution has historically been in the jurisdiction of the federal government rather than the states.
Baltimore filed a lawsuit against the oil and gas companies in 2018 with Annapolis and Anne Arundel County filing similar lawsuits in 2021, according to the Maryland Supreme Court’s opinion. Baltimore alleged in their suit that the companies misled the public about fossil fuel’s dangers. The suit claimed their conduct “actually and proximately caused the sea levels to rise,” “increased coastal erosion,” “increased the destructive impacts of storm surges,” and “disrupted the hydrological cycle.”
Baltimore alleged the oil companies’ conduct caused “inundation, destruction, and/or other interference with” the city’s “property and citizenry.”
Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County argued the causes associated with the defendants’ actions violated Maryland’s laws of public/private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespassing. All cases were initially dismissed by their respective Circuit Courts.
The Circuit Court of Baltimore dismissed Baltimore’s legal claims, stating that public nuisance laws only apply to “cases involving a defendant’s use of land,” not to “product liability cases.” The trespassing claims brought by Baltimore extended beyond what the Maryland Supreme Court allowed in the past. The circuit court dismissed the “failure to warn” claims and determined they were based on a duty to “warn the world” rather than Maryland.
The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County dismissed Annapolis and Anne Arundel “on the grounds of preemption for essentially the same reasons” as the dismissed Baltimore case.
All three localities appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland who consolidated the cases after the defendants moved to consolidate the appeals. The Maryland Supreme Court subsequently took the case after the defendants petitioned for higher court review.
The Maryland Supreme Court dismissed the case, agreeing with the circuit court that the local governments extended state law beyond its applicable territory. The court also stated that regulation of interstate pollution was a federal matter and that state governments never had primary authority regarding it.
“The local governments seek damages for injuries ’caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,’ which are ‘all due to anthropogenic global warming,’” said the Supreme Court’s opinion. “To state the obvious, global warming is created by global consumption. Given that Maryland accounts for only a fraction of global carbon dioxide emissions, Maryland’s emissions alone cannot possibly be responsible for causing the local governments’ alleged injuries.”
“No amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that the local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm,” the court said. The court said it would be impossible to trace the origins of greenhouse gases emitted in the atmosphere and prove the defendants directly caused specific harm to Maryland residents.
“Quite simply, the notion that a local government such as Baltimore, Annapolis, or Anne Arundel County may pursue state law nuisance claims against the Defendants—seeking injunctive relief to abate injuries arising from global greenhouse effects arising from worldwide conduct—is so far afield from any area of traditional state or local responsibility that it cannot be seriously contemplated.”
Chevron Corporation legal counsel Theodore Boutrous Jr. said the Maryland Supreme Court’s decision aligned with many dismissals federal and state courts have made against climate lawsuits. “Allowing each of the 50 states to impose their own preferred policy solutions for climate change would create a plainly irrational system of regulation,” said Boutrous.
The United State Supreme Court agreed in February to review a similar case Boulder City and Boulder County brought against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy and will be hearing arguments in late fall 2026, according to a report by National Law Review.
The Trump administration Department of Justice backed the energy companies’ petition in September and argued that the case would allow for every locality in America to “sue essentially anyone” for global climate change contribution.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
