The Maryland Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on an issue facing judges nationwide: Whether or not local communities can sue oil companies over their role in climate change.
The leaders of Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County sued some of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies in 2018 and 2021, alleging a decades-long disinformation campaign to mislead the public about what causes global warming. The companies’ deception, they argued, encouraged the burning of oil and gas, which unleashed more of the greenhouse gases that are dangerously warming the world and causing damage in Maryland including storms, extreme heat and sea-level rise.
The lawsuits are part of a batch of some three dozen similar cases brought by local governments since 2017 against energy companies, trade groups and utilities in state courts. Both sides have notched wins and losses in early action, but none of the cases have made it to trial yet.
Many legal experts expect the Supreme Court to eventually review the thorny questions at the heart of the cases.
In Maryland, lower courts dismissed the suits. Now the plaintiffs are asking the state’s highest judges to reverse those decisions.
Victor Sher, the lead lawyer for the governments, asked the judges to consider similar cases in Hawaii and Colorado. In those states, the top courts have decided the cases could go to trial, overruling the oil industry’s contention that federal law should apply, not state law. He also disputed the defendants’ arguments that the lawsuits seek to regulate worldwide emissions, a task far outside the abilities of state laws.
Mr. Sher argued that the companies’ actions “made a difference” in how climate change affected local communities and that the case “is entirely about that difference in these communities.”
The seven justices pressed Mr. Sher for details on what the plaintiffs were seeking. If they alleged that the oil companies failed to warn communities about climate change, for example, what would the solution be?
“They would have to warn consumers, their customers, that the products that they are using are substantial causes of climate change,” he said.
For the energy industry, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents Chevron but was speaking on behalf of all the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit sought to have Maryland’s laws rule countries around the world. “It would be intruding on these other nations’ regulation of emissions and determinations about speech and warnings,” he said. “It’s a breathtakingly broad duty they’re asking this court to impose.”
He pointed to other decisions by judges who dismissed similar cases, for example in August in Charleston, S.C. (A spokeswoman for the city confirmed it will not appeal that decision.) He also pointed to a 2021 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case brought by New York City, that found that global warming presents a “uniquely international problem of national concern” that is “not well-suited” to the application of state law.
“I humbly suggest that the Second Circuit got it right and really dealt with every single issue that the plaintiffs are raising here,” Mr. Boutrous said.
The United States Supreme Court already looked at one aspect of Baltimore’s case in 2021: Whether it belonged in state court, where it was originally filed, or in federal court, where the oil companies had tried to move it. Ultimately, that case was allowed to stay in state court.
The companies have also asked the United States Supreme Court to revisit the decision by Colorado’s state Supreme Court.
In other recent developments in the litigation, a judge in Maine ruled last week that a case brought by the state can continue in state court and ordered the defendants to pay legal fees associated with the proceedings to try to remove it to federal court.
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for the Climate desk and the courtroom clashes playing out over climate and environmental policy.
The post Maryland Judges Weigh Whether Cities Can Sue Over Climate Change appeared first on New York Times.
