A Baltimore City Circuit Court judge on Wednesday dismissed Baltimore's lawsuit seeking to hold oil and gas companies responsible for the effects of climate change on the city.
The lawsuit was initially filed in 2018 and has been mired in complex procedural disputes almost ever since, bouncing around various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which resolved a legal issue in 2021 to allow the case to proceed.
In a statement Thursday, the Baltimore City Law Department vowed to appeal the firing.
“We respectfully disagree with this view and will seek review from a higher court,” said Sara Gross, director of the Baltimore City Law Department's affirmative action division.
City officials declined to comment further on the ruling.
Similar cases have been filed in Annapolis and Anne Arundel counties, as well as in a number of other U.S. cities and states, but none have gone to trial.
Energy companies petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court after the Hawaii state Supreme Court ruled that the Honolulu case can go to trial. If the high court takes up the case, the ruling could determine the future of all such cases.
Last month, the Supreme Court sought input from the Biden administration on the appeal, a sign that the justices may be interested in hearing the case.
The Baltimore case, like others, contends that companies including ExxonMobil and Chevron deceptively marketed fossil fuels even though they knew their use posed a powerful threat to a warming world.
Lawyers in the case have debated for years whether the case should be heard in federal or state court. Fossil fuel companies have generally argued that the cases should be heard in federal court, if at all, while district courts have argued that the cases should be heard in state courts, which they argue are more favorable venues.
Judge Videtta A. Brown dismissed the city's claims under state law in Wednesday's ruling, the first of its kind in a climate change lawsuit.
The city argued that its case focused solely on deceptive marketing by oil and gas companies that led to increased use of fossil fuels, exacerbating the effects of climate change on urban infrastructure, such as more frequent flooding. But Brown ruled that the city was actually trying to obtain damages from fossil fuel emissions — not just deceptive marketing — and that those interstate emissions were regulated by the federal government, including the Environmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the city can't sue, Brown said.
“Baltimore's explanation is that it is simply seeking to address and hold defendants accountable for their deceptive misinformation campaign as a way to get something through the back door that they cannot get through the front door,” Brown wrote in the ruling.
Brown said her ruling was consistent with a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed a federal court climate lawsuit against New York City.
“Congress never intended for individual states to handle complaints based on global pollution,” Brown wrote.
In a statement Wednesday, a Chevron attorney praised the judge's ruling.
“Climate policy cannot be advanced through the unconstitutional application of state laws to regulate global emissions,” Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. wrote.
In her decision, Brown also ruled on the merits of the city's case, finding it did not comply with state law.
While the city argued that fossil fuel companies' products caused a public and private nuisance, Brown ruled that greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered a nuisance under state law and that oil and gas companies could be held liable.
“Fossil fuels are a legal consumer product subject to guidance and regulation by the EPA,” Brown wrote. “Baltimore is not alleging that the defendants released hazardous chemicals directly into Baltimore's waters or lands at the point of sale.”
The city also believes fossil fuel companies have a responsibility to warn Baltimore about the ill effects of burning fossil fuels.
But Brown disagrees.
“Baltimore does not allege that its harms arise from its own use or direct exposure to defendants' fossil fuels, but from the decisions of consumers around the world to use fossil fuels over many years,” Brown wrote.
The city cited trespass laws against fossil fuel companies, arguing that climate change impacts encroach on city property such as the city's stormwater infrastructure, particularly near Jones Falls, Gwens Falls and Herring Creek, which could Being flooded more frequently.
Brown ruled that under state law, the connection between the fossil fuel companies' deceptive marketing and the damage to city property was too weak for trespass laws to apply. She also disputes the city's assertion that the company's products have design flaws, arguing that side effects of using fossil fuels are not design flaws.
Finally, Brown rejected the city's attempt to use the Maryland Consumer Protection Act to hold the company accountable, ruling that the law imposed a three-year statute of limitations and that Baltimore had known for more than three years that the negative consequences of fossil fuel emissions were before filing a case.
Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturer Responsibility Project, applauded Brown's ruling in a statement.
“As the Baltimore City Circuit Court said in its opinion, Baltimore's complaint is 'elegant but unsustainable,'” Goldberg wrote. “Regulation of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions goes beyond state law and must be governed by uniform federal law.”
Goldberg said in a statement that the varying state-by-state rulings in climate cases underscore “why the Supreme Court should hear the Honolulu appeal and establish a uniform federal legal rule that applies regardless of where these cases occur.”
The Manufacturer Accountability Program was launched by the legal arm of the National Association of Manufacturers, which represents small and large manufacturing companies across the United States. Model” according to its website, climate change and other issues.
“These lawsuits are designed to enrich plaintiffs' attorneys who successfully lobby state and local governments to hire them to file such lawsuits on their behalf, but do nothing to address the underlying problems they claim to solve,” the project's website reads.
Baltimore hired the San Francisco firm Sher Edling, which also handles climate cases for other cities and states, to help with the lawsuit. The company does not collect payment unless the case is resolved through trial or settlement.
At least one other place in Maryland — Baltimore County — considered filing a similar lawsuit but declined to do so.
Originally published:
