In dismissing Baltimore’s climate lawfare, the judge saw through the activists’ backdoor attempt to regulate American climate policy via the courts.
In a massive loss for the nationally coordinated climate litigation campaign, a Maryland state judge dismissed the City of Baltimore’s lawsuit against energy companies last week. [emphasis, links added]
The ruling firmly rejects the cornerstone legal theory behind the litigation, explaining that state law cannot be used to advance national energy policy and address a global phenomenon such as climate change:
“The Constitution’s federal structure does not allow the application of state law to claims like those presented by Baltimore. … The Supreme Court of the United States has held that state law cannot be used to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries caused by out of state pollution (sources).” (Bold added)
The defeat of Baltimore’s lawsuit, which was filed in 2018, marks yet another blow for the litigation campaign that is propped up by a national network of activist groups, academics, bought-and-paid-for media outlets, and billionaire foundations like the Rockefeller Family Fund.
It also may be a gratifying moment for neighboring Baltimore County officials, who nixed a proposed lawsuit of their own in 2022 after prescient councilmembers of both parties voiced concerns ahead of a vote to hire Sher Edling, the law firm representing Baltimore City and dozens of other states and cities in similar suits.
Judge: The lawsuit is a “backdoor” attempt to address global emissions
In support of her opinion, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown cited a U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the dismissal of New York City’s initial climate lawsuit in 2021, and a January ruling this year that significantly limited the scope of Delaware’s lawsuit.
A deceptively packaged lawsuit doesn’t change Baltimore’s underlying attempt to regulate global energy production, and Judge Brown called out this “backdoor” attempt to address alleged injuries of alleged global climate change that should be handled by legislative means:
“The explanation by Baltimore that it only seeks to address and hold Defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door.” […]
“Global pollution-based complaints were never intended by Congress to be handled by individual states.” (Bold added)
Judge Brown, who former Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley appointed, also hit the nail on the head in pointing out a fundamental issue with these nuisance suits: the production, use, and consumption of traditional energy sources is entirely legal and necessary for modern life.
“The Defendants’ products have not been deemed dangerous in and of themselves. Fossil fuels are a lawful consumer product guided and regulated by the EPA. Even if the products’ normal function was dangerous, liability still would not attach.” (Bold added)
Experts Highlight Importance of Ruling, Look to SCOTUS
Experts on both sides commented on the importance of the dismissal, namely that the ruling strengthens calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the litigation’s merits.
Judge Brown’s decision subtly questioned the Hawaii Supreme Court’s logic in refusing to dismiss Honolulu’s climate lawsuit, a decision that is currently on appeal before SCOTUS:
“The instant case goes beyond the limits of Maryland state law. Again, the bottom line is that Baltimore, like NYC (and if the truth be told Honolulu), intends to hold the [Defendants] liable under [Maryland] law, for the effects of emissions made around the globe over the past several hundred years.” (Emphasis added)
Pointing to the discrepancy between rulings from the Hawaii Supreme Court, Delaware state court, and now Maryland, the Wall Street Journal editorial board argued that the Honolulu petition should be granted, writing that “the growing lower court conflict is an important reason for Justices to hear the case.”
Even Michael Gerrard – a professor at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center and a key longtime supporter of climate litigation – described the ruling as a “setback” and acknowledged that the Baltimore court’s decision raises the stakes for Supreme Court intervention:
“There are cases going in both directions on this. … This is mostly a matter of state law, with no uniform national outcome, unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and shuts all the cases down.”
Bottom line: In dismissing Baltimore’s climate lawsuit in full, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown rightly saw through activists’ backdoor attempt to regulate American climate policy.
With no wins to speak of, this latest loss may further chill the litigation campaign’s other attempts elsewhere around the country, including in places like Michigan.
Top photo by adrian susec on Unsplash
Read more at EID Climate
Take the Survey at https://survey.energynewsbeat.com/
