Climate Change Reparations Melted By New Court Ruling In Deep Blue State
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…


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



