A Maryland judge last week dismissed the city of Baltimore's lawsuit against energy companies, inflicting huge damage to the nationally coordinated climate litigation movement. [emphasis, links added]
The ruling firmly rejected the bedrock legal theory behind the lawsuit, explaining: National laws cannot be used to drive national energy policies and address global phenomena such as climate change:
“The federal structure of the Constitution does not allow the application of state law to claims made by Baltimore. … The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state law cannot be used to resolve claims seeking compensation for injuries caused by out-of-state pollution (sources). (bold)
The failure of a lawsuit filed by Baltimore in 2018 marked another blow to a litigation campaign backed by a national network of activist groups, academics, paid media and foundations of billionaires like Rockefeller.
It could also be a comforting moment for officials in neighboring Baltimore County, ahead of a vote to hire Sher Edling, the law firm representing the city of Baltimore and dozens of others. Prescient lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns, vetoing a 2022 lawsuit of their own.
Judge: Lawsuit is a 'backdoor' to solve global emissions problem
To support her point of view, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown cited a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed the dismissal of New York City's original 2021 climate lawsuit, A ruling in January significantly limited the scope of the Delaware lawsuit.
A deceptive lawsuit does nothing to change Baltimore's fundamental attempt to regulate global energy production, and Judge Brown pointed out that this “back door” attempt is to solve the so-called harm caused by global climate change, which should be dealt with through legislative means.:
“Baltimore's explanation is that it is simply seeking to resolve and hold defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign, which is Just a way to get in something through the back door that they can't get in through the front door. […]
“Congress never intended for individual states to handle complaints based on global pollution.” (Bold emphasis)
Judge Brown, appointed by former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley, also pointedly pointed out a fundamental problem with these nuisance lawsuits: The production, use and consumption of traditional energy is completely legal and necessary for modern life.
“Defendant's product itself is not considered dangerous. Fossil fuels are legal consumer products subject to guidance and regulation by the EPA. Liability is not assumed even if the normal functioning of the product is dangerous. (bold)
Experts stress importance of ruling, look forward to Supreme Court
Experts on both sides commented on the importance of dismissal, i.e. The ruling intensifies calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the merits of the lawsuit.
Judge Brown’s ruling neatly questions the logic of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s refusal to dismiss Honolulu’s climate lawsuit, which is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court:
“This case exceeds the limits of Maryland law. Again, the bottom line is Baltimore, just like New York (If the truth be told Honolulu), intend to hold [Defendants] easy under [Maryland] law, The impact of global emissions over the past hundreds of years.“(emphasize)
Noting the differences between the decisions of the Hawaii Supreme Court, Delaware state courts, and now Maryland state courts, wall street journal The editorial board believes the Honolulu petition should be approved, writes “The increasing conflict in the lower courts was an important reason for the justices to consider this case.”
Even Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center and a long-time leading supporter of climate litigation, described the ruling as a “setback” and acknowledged Baltimore court ruling raises risk of Supreme Court intervention:
“There are cases going both ways on this. … This is primarily a state law issue and there is no uniform national outcome unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and puts an end to all cases.
Bottom line: Dismiss Baltimore's climate lawsuit outright, Baltimore Circuit Judge Videtta Brown correctly saw through activists’ attempts to regulate U.S. climate policy through the back door.
With no victory in sight, this latest defeat could further chill other attempts at the litigation elsewhere around the country, including in places like Michigan.
Popular photo on Unsplash by adrian susec
Read more about EID Climate
