NICK PHUONG THANH
CONTRIBUTORS
A judge dismissed Baltimore’s climate lawsuit against major energy corporations on Wednesday.
Baltimore County District Court Judge Videtta Brown rule Wednesday to throw out of town litigation seeks to hold major oil companies — including British Petroleum (BP), Chevron, and ExxonMobil — accountable for climate change and for allegedly misleading the public about the environmental damage they knew their products would cause. Brown wrote that the lawsuit “goes beyond the bounds of Maryland state law” in her ruling.
The Baltimore lawsuit is one of the much Similar-style lawsuits against major oil companies are being pursued by Democratic-leaning jurisdictions, including Minnesota and San Francisco. Like those other lawsuits, Baltimore argues that the oil giants should compensate the city for the impacts of climate change. (RELATED: Top state judge handling climate lawsuit worked with environmental group linked to plaintiffs’ attorneys)
“This court finds that Baltimore’s claim is entirely about addressing injuries caused by global climate change and seeking compensation for such alleged injuries. Baltimore’s explanation that it is merely seeking to address and hold Defendants liable for a deceptive disinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what it could not get in the front door,” Brown wrote in the ruling. “Whether the claim is characterized one way or another, the analysis and answer are the same—the federalist structure of the Constitution does not permit the application of state law to claims such as those presented by Baltimore.”
Brown’s legal analysis is similar to that of other critics of the climate litigation phenomenon, including those submit amicus brief to the Supreme Court this spring regarding a similar Honolulu climate nuisance litigation against the oil giants for example.
In addition to concerns about federalism, other observers point out that different rulings in different courts regarding oil companies’ responsibility for climate change could jeopardize national security by undermining national energy production.
“The Court’s well-reasoned opinion recognizes that climate policy cannot be advanced by unconstitutionally applying state law to regulate global emissions,” Theodore Boutrous Jr., general counsel for Chevron, said in a statement about the ruling. “As the court stated, Baltimore’s claims ‘go beyond the limits of Maryland state law’ and ‘cannot survive because they are precluded by federal common law (and the Clean Air Act).’ The state’s meritless litigation now being orchestrated by a small group of plaintiffs’ attorneys only serves to undermine legitimate progress toward a lower-carbon global energy system.”
The offices of Baltimore Democratic Mayor Brandon Scott, BP and ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news broadcast service, is freely available to any legitimate news publisher who can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, the reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or about partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Related
