ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Maryland Supreme Court dismissed three high-profile climate change lawsuits Tuesday, March 24, ruling that Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County cannot use state and local nuisance laws to hold oil and gas companies financially responsible for global warming impacts.
In a 3-2 decision, the court threw out the cases filed by the Democrat-led jurisdictions against companies including BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron. The lawsuits claimed the companies concealed information about their products’ role in climate change, leading to billions in local costs for infrastructure damage, flooding and emergency response.
Justice Brynja Booth wrote the majority opinion, stressing that climate change is an international issue crossing all borders. “Quite simply, the notion that a local government such as Baltimore, Annapolis, or Anne Arundel County may pursue state law nuisance claims against the Defendants – seeking injunctive relief to abate injuries arising from global greenhouse effects arising from worldwide conduct – is so far afield from any area of traditional state or local responsibility that it cannot be seriously contemplated,” Booth wrote.
Anne Arundel County, which borders Calvert County in Southern Maryland, joined the suits alongside Baltimore and Annapolis. The ruling means county taxpayers will not see potential damage awards or forced changes in how fossil fuel products are marketed or sold locally through these legal claims.
Attorneys for the oil companies argued during October oral arguments that federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency hold authority over nationwide emissions regulation, not local courts. They pointed to the EPA’s existing process for scientific input on rules, including warning labels on products.
The decision aligns Maryland with a growing number of courts rejecting similar suits. Other Democrat-run governments, including Hawaii, California, Minnesota, Colorado, Boulder, San Francisco and New York, have filed parallel cases against fossil fuel companies over the same issues.
Critics of the lawsuits praised the Maryland ruling and called for similar dismissals elsewhere. Professor John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Research Fellow at the School of Civic Leadership at Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement, “Maryland’s Supreme Court should be the first of more high courts, including the Supreme Court, to come to their senses. They should reject the perversion of state tort law to interfere with national control over the energy industry. The rise in oil prices due to the Iran War should underscore the national interests at stake.”
Victor Sher, an attorney representing the city and county plaintiffs, argued during the case that oil and gas companies must provide warnings on their products commensurate with the risk of rising global temperatures and climate change. The Supreme Court rejected that position.
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law, called the decision a matter of common sense. “Today’s decision by the Maryland Supreme Court strikes an important blow for democracy, the rule of law, and common sense,” he said. “The Court notes that for over a century the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have recognized that claims of interstate pollution – much less international in scope – are inherently federal in nature and are governed by federal law. … As the Maryland Supreme Court observes, ‘No amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm.’ As the United States Supreme Court is considering Boulder County’s similar lawsuit, it should look to this Court’s sensible decision as a roadmap in putting to rest these absurd claims once and for all.”
The 3-2 split shows the court weighed local authority against the broader scope of climate policy. The majority emphasized that allowing such suits would let local governments effectively regulate global industries through state tort law, something traditionally reserved for federal oversight.
For Southern Maryland families in Anne Arundel and neighboring Calvert County, the ruling removes one potential avenue for local governments to seek funding for sea-level rise projects or storm damage tied to climate claims. The cases had sought injunctive relief to force companies to change practices or pay for abatement efforts.
Legal observers say the decision could influence the U.S. Supreme Court, which is reviewing a similar case from Boulder County, Colorado. The Maryland opinion provides a clear framework rejecting local nuisance claims for global harms.
The lawsuits had been closely watched in Maryland because they targeted everyday gasoline and heating products used by residents across the state, including in Southern Maryland communities reliant on both military and civilian energy needs. The dismissal keeps those costs from shifting directly to the companies through state courts.
This marks a significant win for the energy industry and a setback for local governments seeking financial relief through litigation rather than legislation or federal regulation. The ruling reinforces that climate policy remains a national and international matter best handled at higher levels of government.
