A Climate-Change Lawsuit Dead End

Baltimore loses its bid to soak oil and gas firms as public nuisances

WSJ editorial. 

"Can a city regulate carbon emissions for the entire U.S. by a judicial back door? Not according to a Maryland judge, who on Wednesday smacked down Baltimore’s climate-change lawsuit against oil and gas companies.

Baltimore joined other progressive cities in suing fossil-fuel producers for causing a public nuisance with their emissions and misleading consumers about their contributions to climate change. The city demanded that the companies pay damages for sundry climate harms allegedly resulting from their emissions.

No dice. “Global pollution-based complaints were never intended by Congress to be handled by individual states,” Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown, a Democratic appointee, explained in her ruling. “Federal law governs disputes involving air and water in their ambient state.”

A unanimous Supreme Court held as much in AEP v. Connecticut (2011), which dismissed similar claims by states in federal court. Cities have sought to end-run that decision by suing in state courts. Because the Clean Air Act forecloses federal common law claims over emissions, Judge Brown writes that the law also blocks such lawsuits in state courts.

She also rejected Baltimore’s claim that it wasn’t trying to directly punish emitters or regulate global emissions. “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 judge writes.

While the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and a Delaware state court have come to similar conclusions, Hawaii’s Supreme Court let Honolulu’s lawsuit move forward in state court. Oil and gas companies have appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the growing lower court conflict is an important reason for Justices to hear the case."