Baltimore Judge Throws Out Climate Case, Big Oil Wins Hands – Inside Climate News

In his first kind ruling, a Maryland judge on Wednesday threw out Baltimore City’s climate suit against the oil giants on the grounds that it is not part of federal courts to address the global problem. such as climate change.

Originally filed in 2018, the lawsuit is one of more than a dozen similar lawsuits against major oil companies including Chevron, Exxon and BP that are making their way through courts across the country. .

States across the US are concerned about the effects of climate change and are taking legal action to seek compensation from oil giants who, they argue, profited by selling products they knew were harmful. they have caused environmental harm and brought disasters such as global warming and extreme weather conditions.

Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Videtta A. Brown sided with the oil companies, explaining that the greenhouse gas emissions in Baltimore fall under the federal Clean Air Act.

“Whether the complaint is characterized one way or the other, the analysis and the answer are the same – the federal structure of the Constitution does not allow the application of state law to doubts such as those raised by Baltimore,” Brown he wrote about his feelings. “Global pollution claims were not intended by Congress to be handled by individual states.”

Sara Gross, director of the Affirmative Litigation Division at the Baltimore City Law Department, said her office disagrees with Brown’s decision and will seek a higher court review.

The city, in its case, argued that the oil and gas companies were liable for damages because they falsely marketed their products and concealed the dangers associated with burning the oil, but they didn’t want to control emissions.

“This decision is a dream of the oil companies. This is what they would like to see happen in all those cases,” said Robert Percival, professor and director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.

Percival said Brown argued that while Baltimore City was seeking damages for consumer fraud and disinformation, it actually wanted to control production.

“These cases were state law actions for consumer fraud due to oil companies lying about the effect of their products and engaging in a disinformation campaign,” Percival said, adding in that he believes the judge was wrong in deciding that the government’s action for damages. it will have the effect of controlling emissions, which is the goal of the Clean Air Act.

“The Clean Air Act has no damages provision and nothing to allow plaintiffs to recover for consumer fraud,” Percival said, noting that even the Supreme Court had previously refused to concluded that the Clean Air Act preempted state common law as indicated. 2011 ruling at American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut.

Alyssa Johl, vice president and general counsel of the Center for Climate Integrity, a DC environmental organization, said the decision contradicts how other courts have ruled similar cases, including the Maryland state court. which allowed climate fraud lawsuits that the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County separately brought against fossil fuel companies to proceed with the lawsuit.

“Judges across the country have agreed that cases like the one in Baltimore are meant to hold bad actors accountable for fraud and deception; they don’t want to control emissions at all,” Johl wrote in an email.

This decision is a major victory for the power giants who have always tried to avoid litigating cases in federal courts and even going to the Supreme Court to decide that those cases belong to the courts. the government. But the Supreme Court refused to consider the appeal and sent the cases back to the federal courts.

The oil companies thought that the only way to get these cases dismissed was to take them to federal court. But the courts have rejected that in the same way, saying these cases are for federal courts,” Percival said.

“The federal law does not provide for damages, that’s why it’s a kind of dream for the oil companies. Their goal is to avoid a trial that will reveal what they really know about the products of climate change for decades. They keep trying to get the United States Supreme Court to overrule all climate cases.”

Michael Gerrard, a professor of practice at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, called the decision “back for similar cases.” In January, a Delaware court ruled that federal lawsuits against oil companies can continue, but damages will only be limited to within the state of Delaware.

The Delaware lawsuit alleges the fossil fuel industry hid the dangers of their products, to the detriment of the state.

“There are cases going both ways on this issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a similar ruling in a case called City of New York v. Chevron. Courts in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Colorado ruled otherwise and said the cases could continue. This is usually a matter of state law, with no consistent state outcome, unless the United States Supreme Court intervenes. and you close all the cases,” said Gerrard.

Percival disputed that statement, saying “the courts have allowed the cases to continue, and this is the first state law case that has been completely dismissed.”

When the lawsuit was filed in 2018, Baltimore City Attorney Andre Davis said “[t]hey the oil and gas companies knew for decades that their products would harm communities like ours, and we will hold them accountable. Baltimore residents, workers, and businesses should not have to pay for the damage these companies willfully cause. ”

The 13th lawsuit of its kind to be filed at the time, the complaint sought to hold 26 oil and gas companies liable for damages related to sea level rise and environmental changes. which was responsible for causing extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes, droughts, heat. waves and extreme rainfall events caused by industrial products.