The Maryland Supreme Court has ruled that three climate‑related lawsuits filed by the City of Baltimore, Anne Arundel County and the City of Annapolis cannot proceed under state nuisance law. Justice Brynja Booth wrote that only federal law governs cases involving interstate pollution, rejecting the plaintiffs’ attempt to use state statutes to "regulate air emissions beyond their jurisdictional boundaries".
Background to the cases
The lawsuits, filed between 2018 and 2021, alleged that more than two dozen oil companies – including BP, Chevron and ExxonMobil – violated nuisance laws by selling products that generate carbon emissions, which in turn cause costly weather events that harm local residents. The defendants argued that the claims would force the industry to pay tens of billions of dollars in damages and could ultimately dismantle it.
The Trump administration, which submitted a brief last year urging dismissal, welcomed the ruling. The brief stated that "[Federal law] contemplates no role for states reaching out and applying their law in other states."
Chevron’s counsel, Theodore Boutrous Jr., said the decision confirmed that allowing each state to impose its own climate‑policy solutions would create an irrational regulatory system and that state‑law claims are barred by clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Wider climate‑litigation effort
The three Maryland actions are part of a coordinated push by dozens of Democratic‑led cities and states to hold oil and gas firms accountable for climate change. More than a quarter of the U.S. population lives in jurisdictions pursuing similar suits. States such as California, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota and New Jersey, and cities including Chicago, Honolulu, San Francisco and New York have filed comparable actions, some – like Honolulu’s – already moving toward trial.
The Supreme Court of Colorado is expected to hear a related case brought by the City of Boulder in the coming months.
Legal representation and reactions
Most of the municipalities involved employ the same outside law firm, San Francisco‑based Sher Edling, which receives funding from left‑wing environmental nonprofits. Sara Gross, chief of the affirmative litigation division at the Baltimore City Department of Law, said she agrees with Justice Killough’s dissent, which argues that the majority’s conclusion is a prediction about discovery rather than a legal finding.
Annapolis did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and Anne Arundel County declined to comment.
Implications
The ruling is likely to shape the future of climate‑change litigation across the United States, potentially limiting the ability of cities and states to pursue similar claims under state law.
First reported by the source report.