The Maryland Supreme Court showed clear skepticism yesterday toward efforts to revive three climate lawsuits brought by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County. [emphasis, links added]
The cases, previously dismissed by lower courts, hinged on whether state law can be stretched to demand financial compensation for alleged climate impacts tied to greenhouse gas emissions released far beyond the state’s borders.
During oral arguments, justices pressed plaintiffs’ attorney Vic Sher of Sher Edling to explain how such sweeping global claims could possibly fit within Maryland’s judicial framework. One justice said they’re struggling to “hone in on what this looks like,” while Justice Brynja M. Booth cut to the core:
“It seems like your theory of injury and your relief are all tied and necessarily depend on interstate and international emissions.”
All three cases aim to hold major energy companies liable for their global climate impacts.
The Maryland justices’ doubts mirror the growing uncertainty surrounding these cases nationwide: while courts in Colorado and Hawaii have allowed similar cases to proceed in state jurisdictions, others in New Jersey, New York City, and Charleston have dismissed them, recognizing that climate policy is a federal, even global, issue.
If the plaintiffs expected a warmer reception at the state’s highest court, they were mistaken.
The case is part of a nationwide effort by about 35 states and municipalities to bring lawsuits against fossil fuel companies over their impact on climate change.https://t.co/NUQaLY2tsA
— Katharine Wilson (@kwilson_news) October 6, 2025
As the Baltimore Sun reports:
“Justices poked holes in Sher’s argument, emphasizing a lack of specific examples of disinformation produced by the companies; a lack of a clear sense of the impact better warning customers in Maryland would have had on local climate change impacts; and the global scope of the companies and the changing climate.”
Sher Edling offered few concrete facts to back claims that energy companies knew more than anyone else about climate risks or that any Maryland consumer was misled.
Even when pressed, the plaintiffs failed to say what a “warning” label on energy use should have looked like.
Lower Courts Already Rejected These Claims
Maryland’s lower courts have already made it clear: global climate issues can’t be litigated under state law. In January, the Anne Arundel Circuit Court dismissed the county and Annapolis cases, ruling:
“The U.S. Constitution’s federal structure does not allow the application of State Court claims like those presented in the instant cases.”
Baltimore’s case met the same fate in 2024, with the trial court emphasizing a disconnect between state law and the ability to address global phenomena like climate change:
“The Constitution’s federal structure does not allow the application of state law to claims like those presented by Baltimore. … The Supreme Court of the United States has held that state law cannot be used to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries caused by out of state pollution.” (emphasis added)
Amid multiple in-state losses, the banged-up Maryland climate lawfare campaign decided it was going to try one more time to advance a politically skewed national energy policy through the state courts and appealed the dismissal to the state supreme court.
John Yoo is spot on here re climate lawfare:
“Notwithstanding some recent wins, climate lawfare is like Hydra — new cases are constantly being brought. Even if higher courts ultimately overturn them, simply forcing the industry to defend against these suits imposes enormous… pic.twitter.com/SlAjarOMmk
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) October 1, 2025
Based on the oral arguments, it looks like they will be facing the same obstacles, just in a new legal arena.
Consumer Protection or Climate Policy by Lawsuit?
Plaintiffs tried to frame the cases as “consumer protection” suits about disinformation. The justices didn’t buy it.
They pointed out the absence of evidence showing Maryland-specific deception — or any real link between alleged messaging and local climate impacts.
Defense attorney Ted Boutrous hit the nail on the head:
“This case is about obstacle limitations. It’s intruding on the EPA ability to regulate state emissions.”
That echoes what Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown wrote when she dismissed the city’s case, calling it “back door” policymaking:
“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… Global pollution-based complaints were never intended by Congress to be handled by individual states.”
Simply put, these cases are not about protecting consumers. They’re about forcing national energy policy through local courts.
DOJ, States Warn Against Overreach
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 24 state attorneys general have urged the Maryland Supreme Court to uphold the dismissals, warning that extending Maryland law to global emissions would override federal and international authority.
As the DOJ put it:
“Extending Maryland law to redress climate-related harms caused by activities that overwhelmingly occurred beyond state and international borders would override policy choices made by the federal government and Maryland’s sister states.”
Despite attempts by the plaintiffs to present claims as a way to protect consumers, all signs point to it actually being about regulating emissions.
As Michael Toth, director of research at the Civitas Institute of the University of Texas at Austin, explained:
“Climate-related legal battles in Maryland threaten to deter the investments necessary to lower high energy prices, create well-paying tech jobs, and generate new tax revenue… U.S. energy companies can’t be expected to power the AI revolution if shareholders are forced to pay billions in legal costs… Whether climate advocates try to frame their claims as nuisance or consumer protection issues, the outcome remains the same.”
Bottom line: The Maryland Supreme Court now faces a pivotal decision: will it reinforce sound judicial boundaries or allow climate activists to use state courts to set national energy policy?
Read more at EID Climate
Sher Edling doesn’t care about the climate or any changes to it that may be caused by the use of fossil fuels. They just see huge dollar signs if they can convince a jury that the fossil fuel industry is the cause for any of this.