Maryland Supreme Court Rules Against Local Governments in Climate Lawsuits

Mar 26, 2026, 2:43 AM

Hover over text to view sources

The Maryland Supreme Court has ruled that local governments cannot pursue lawsuits against major oil companies for damages related to climate change, a decision that has significant implications for similar lawsuits across the country. This ruling stems from cases filed by Baltimore City in 2018 and followed by Annapolis and Anne Arundel County in 2021, which aimed to hold companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP accountable for their contributions to climate change.

In a 165-page ruling, the court determined that the local governments were attempting to regulate air emissions that extend beyond their jurisdiction. The justices stated that such regulatory power falls exclusively under federal law, specifically the Clean Air Act, which preempts state and local claims related to interstate pollution. The court noted that this has been established by US Supreme Court precedent for over a century.

During the hearing, there was considerable debate regarding the nature of the lawsuits. Vic Sher, the attorney representing the municipalities, argued that the cases centered on corporate deception rather than direct regulation of emissions. However, the justices expressed skepticism about this characterization, questioning how the suits could be separated from the broader implications of greenhouse gas emissions that affect the entire country and beyond.

The majority opinion concluded that even if state laws were not preempted, the claims were still insufficient under Maryland law for public and private nuisance, strict liability, and negligent failure to warn. The judges emphasized that the municipalities' allegations, while framed in terms of fraud and deception, ultimately aimed to impose regulatory controls that are outside their authority.

Justice Peter Killough, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the claims should not have been dismissed and suggested that they were indeed based on deception and fraud rather than just emissions. He criticized the majority for adopting a "strawman" argument presented by the defendants and asserted that the municipalities deserved to have their claims heard on the merits.

The ruling represents a significant setback for local governments seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate-related damages. Similar lawsuits are currently being pursued in other states, and the outcomes of these cases will likely depend on the legal interpretations of jurisdiction and liability.

As the impacts of climate change become increasingly evident, the debate over accountability for its causes continues to evolve in courts across the United States. The Maryland Supreme Court's decision highlights the challenges that local governments face in seeking justice and compensation from major corporations responsible for environmental harm.

While some states have allowed climate lawsuits to proceed, Maryland's ruling marks a departure from that trend. As the legal landscape surrounding climate accountability continues to shift, communities affected by climate change will likely look for new avenues to seek redress in the face of this recent ruling.

In conclusion, the Maryland Supreme Court's decision not only affects the plaintiffs involved but also sets a precedent that may influence future climate litigation nationwide, as local governments struggle to navigate the complexities of law and jurisdiction in their fight against climate change.

Maryland Supreme Court Dismisses Baltimore's Climate Lawsuit

The Maryland Supreme Court has ruled against Baltimore's climate lawsuit, stating that the city could not hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate-related damages. This decision reflects ongoing debates over the accountability of corporations in environmental degradation and the legal frameworks surrounding climate change litigation.

Maryland Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Oil Companies Over Climate Lawsuits

The Maryland Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings dismissing climate change lawsuits against major oil companies by Baltimore and other local governments. The decisions prevent communities from holding these companies accountable for climate-related damages, emphasizing a contentious battle over liability and fraud in the context of global warming.

Trump Administration Pays $1 Billion to TotalEnergies to Drop Wind Leases

The Trump administration has agreed to pay $1 billion to TotalEnergies, a French energy company, to relinquish two offshore wind leases off the coasts of North Carolina and New York. This decision has drawn criticism from environmental groups who view it as a significant setback for renewable energy efforts in the US.

Trump Administration Allocates $1 Billion to Halt East Coast Wind Farms

The Trump administration has reached a $1 billion agreement with TotalEnergies to cancel two offshore wind projects off the East Coast. This decision redirects funds from clean energy initiatives to fossil fuel investments, raising concerns among environmental advocates about energy security and future renewable projects.

The Struggles of Climate Change Legislation in Washington D.C.

Despite widespread public concern about climate change, significant legislation has continually failed to pass in Washington DC The intersection of partisanship, economic interests, and a lack of political will has hindered meaningful progress on climate policy.