On July 10, 2024, a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge dismissed a complaint brought by the City of Baltimore against 25 fossil fuel manufacturers, seeking to hold them liable on numerous state-law theories, including for alleged misrepresentations about the effects on their products on the climate, and to abate various asserted effects of climate change on Baltimore. The decision marks the first time that a state court judge has dismissed in full one of the many lawsuits brought by state and local governments seeking damages from fossil fuel manufacturers for the effects of using fossil fuels on the climate.
The lawsuit's history dates back to July 2018 when Baltimore retained private attorneys to bring claims against the defendants for public and private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, negligent design, trespass, and violations of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. Baltimore alleged that the defendants were individually and collectively responsible for a substantial portion of the total greenhouse gases emitted in the world. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that energy production and greenhouse gas emissions are inherently federal issues that cannot be addressed under state law. The parties then litigated the question of whether the case should be heard in state or federal court for several years, including two appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, the case was remanded to the Baltimore City Circuit Court by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's holding that the case should be decided in state court because Baltimore relied exclusively on state-law claims to remedy alleged damages to Baltimore. The defendants then moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings.
In a 35-page opinion granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Baltimore City Circuit Court held that all of Baltimore's state-law claims were preempted by federal common law and the federal Clean Air Act. Relying on the Second Circuit's decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2021), the court concluded that "[g]lobal pollution-based complaints were never intended by Congress to be handled by individual states," and that "[f]ederal law governs disputes involving air and water in their ambient state." The court rejected Baltimore's arguments that its case was based only on the defendants' marketing, and that it did not seek damages for fossil fuel emissions regulated by the federal government, writing: "The explanation by Baltimore that it only seeks to address and hold Defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door."
The court also held that all of Baltimore's state-law claims failed on their merits. The court rejected the city's nuisance claims, declining to extend Maryland nuisance law to claims relating to products permitted and regulated by the government, without any allegation that the defendants directly deposited a dangerous product into the land and water. As to the city's failure to warn claims, the court held that they could not survive because Baltimore did not allege that its injury came from its own use or direct exposure to the defendants' fossil fuels, but "from consumers' decision to use fossil fuels across the globe for many years." The court also rejected the city's design defect claims, concluding that the alleged side effects of fossil fuels were not a flaw in the products' design, and dismissed the city's trespass claim because the defendants' general sale and promotion of fossil fuels did not constitute control over foreign matter entering city property. Finally, the court dismissed the city's Consumer Protection Act claims as barred by the statute of limitations, because it was clear that Baltimore was "well aware of defendants' alleged conduct" many years before bringing its lawsuit.
The thorough and well-reasoned opinion in the City of Baltimore case recognizes and adheres to the traditional limits of state tort law. The decision may impact other courts deciding whether to allow ongoing climate change lawsuits to proceed, including those brought by the nearby City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. The decision also adds to the list of decisions from state courts on similar issues, which include a Delaware court's recent decision to allow the State of Delaware's suit to proceed only as to certain claims and as to emissions within Delaware, and the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision to allow the City of Honolulu's case to proceed in full. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deciding whether to hear an appeal by oil and gas manufacturers in the Honolulu case and recently sought input from the Biden administration on the request for review.
