(The Center Square) – A coalition of states, legal scholars, trade groups, and the U.S. Department of Justice is urging Maryland’s highest court to reject attempts by three Maryland jurisdictions to revive climate lawsuits against oil and gas companies.
Eight amicus briefs filed this week argue that the Maryland Supreme Court should uphold the dismissals of climate-related cases brought by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County.
Circuit judges in each jurisdiction dismissed the lawsuits earlier this year, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.
The U.S. Department of Justice, 24 state attorneys general led by Alabama, and organizations ranging from the National Association of Manufacturers to the Maryland Defense Counsel contend the cases overreach by trying to regulate global emissions through local courts.
“These suits have nothing to do with advertisements in Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, or Baltimore,” the attorneys general wrote. “Perfect compliance with Maryland’s consumer laws would not have stopped the ‘storms’ and ‘heatwaves,’ nor would any remedy in those three Maryland jurisdictions abate the alleged injuries.”
The Justice Department argued the complaints target “worldwide activities” and implicate “substantial federal interests.”
Its brief states, “There is no relationship between that conduct and any interest unique to Maryland that would permit the local governments to exercise regulatory authority over fossil fuel production and marketing across the country.”
Baltimore’s case was dismissed on July 10, 2024, by Judge Videtta Brown. Additionally, Judge Steven Platt dismissed the Annapolis and Anne Arundel County lawsuits on Jan. 16, 2025.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court after the dismissals.
The DRI Center for Law and Public Policy and Maryland Defense Counsel, Inc. criticized what they called an “expansive theory of nuisance liability,” arguing the lawsuits ask the court “to upend 150 years of Maryland case law.”
Their brief warned, “Without control, a manufacturer cannot remove or abate the nuisance… a party is simply too far removed from the nuisance to be held responsible for it.”
Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo, writing with the Mountain States Legal Foundation, accused the plaintiffs of using tort law to “set nationwide climate policy.”
“Regulating the global climate is improper for local tort law,” and warned that the logic behind the lawsuits could make “every producer, user, and consumer of fossil fuels… the next defendant,” the brief said.
It’s unclear when the Maryland Supreme Court will decide whether to hear oral arguments or issue a ruling.
