Maryland high court blocks local climate damages claims against oil companies
Maryland ruling
The Supreme Court of Maryland rejected efforts by Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County to hold major oil and gas companies liable for damages tied to global climate change, ruling that the claims are preempted by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
The court said the local governments’ state-law tort claims, including nuisance, negligence, failure to warn and trespass, were based on out-of-state and international greenhouse gas emissions and therefore could not proceed in state court. The majority said local governments cannot use state law to regulate worldwide conduct or seek relief for harms arising from global emissions.
Justice Brynja Booth, writing for the majority, said holding the companies responsible for foreign activity would force them to absorb climate-related costs in ways that could affect fossil fuel prices and production abroad, while also bypassing diplomatic channels such as the U.N. framework and the Paris Agreement.
Claims against oil companies
The localities had sued more than two dozen companies, including Chevron, BP and Shell, as well as an energy trade association. They alleged the companies misled the public for decades about the dangers of fossil fuels despite long knowing about their connection to climate change.
The local governments argued their lawsuits were aimed at deception, not at regulating emissions themselves. They said the complaints targeted an alleged misinformation campaign that contributed to their injuries from climate change impacts, and did not claim the defendants broke the law merely by producing, selling or burning fossil fuels.
The majority rejected that distinction. Booth wrote that the ultimate conduct at issue was the global use of greenhouse gases and that the asserted harms arose from worldwide emissions, beyond the scope of local police powers.
Procedural history and dissent
The companies had removed the case to federal court. After earlier proceedings that included a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the matter was sent back to state court, where lower courts dismissed the complaints. Those courts concluded Congress did not intend for individual states to resolve claims tied to global pollution.
The Maryland high court also held that the claims were not legally cognizable regardless of whether federal law displaced them. It said public nuisance is not a tort claim for damages in this context, but a public action used by government to stop harmful conduct.
Justices Shirley Watts and Peter Killough dissented in part. Killough wrote that some of the localities’ allegations resembled fraud claims and that the Clean Air Act did not preclude them. He said the court’s role in a preemption case is to determine what Congress actually said, not what defendants say the case is about.
Broader litigation fight
The case drew support for the companies from 24 states, including Alabama and Ohio, which argued in amicus briefs that such lawsuits threaten affordable energy and improperly use state law to address interstate emissions.
The ruling comes as similar climate liability cases continue around the country. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*, which also raises whether federal law preempts state-law claims seeking relief for injuries caused by interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions.