Oral arguments were heard in front of the Maryland Supreme Court this past Monday on the matter of three local government cases looking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate change.
Three cases brought by local governments over the last almost decade are being considered for standing by the Maryland Supreme Court during the current term. Oral arguments were heard by both the plaintiffs and defendants for a little over an hour on Monday, October 6, with the justices asking hard questions of both parties.
This hearing was a compilation of three cases that were previously dismissed by lower courts in Maryland. At that time the Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County Circuit Courts ruled the same way which resulted in the dismissal of the cases, as requested by the defendants, saying local governments are preempted by federal authority from bringing these claims.
Following this, both parties petitioned the Maryland Supreme Court to address the matter and those requests were ultimately approved. The below questions from the plaintiffs and defendants were up for consideration on Monday. After reviewing these questions, if the Maryland Supreme Court believes local governments are authorized to seek damages from fossil fuel companies for their role in climate change then the cases in Anne Arundel, Annapolis, and Baltimore City will be authorized to move forward.
From the petition for writ of certiorari:
- Do the U.S. Constitution and federal law preempt and preclude state law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of out-of-state and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate?
- Does Maryland law preclude nuisance claims based on injuries allegedly caused by the worldwide production, promotion, and sale of a lawful consumer product?
- Does Maryland law preclude failure-to-warn claims premised on a duty to warn every person in the world whose use of a product may have contributed to a global phenomenon with effects that allegedly harmed the plaintiff?
- Does Maryland law preclude trespass claims based on harms allegedly caused by global climate changes arising from the use of a product by billions of third parties around the world outside of producer’s control?
From the cross-petition for writ of certiorari:
- Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for public and private nuisance?
- Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for strict liability and negligent failure to warn?
- Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for trespass.
A decision is expected in the next 9 to 12 months.
