NICK POPE
CONTRIBUTOR
A judge tossed out Baltimore’s climate lawsuit against major energy corporations on Wednesday.
Judge Videtta Brown of the Baltimore City Circuit Court ruled Wednesday to throw out the city’s lawsuit seeking to hold major oil companies — including British Petroleum (BP), Chevron and ExxonMobil — liable for climate change and an alleged effort to deceive the public about the environmental damage they knew their products would cause. Brown wrote that the lawsuit “goes beyond the limits of Maryland state law” in her ruling.
Baltimore’s litigation was one of many similarly-styled lawsuits against major oil companies being pursued by Democratic jurisdictions, including Minnesota and San Francisco. Like others, Baltimore argued that the oil giants should compensate the city for the effects of climate change. (RELATED: Top State Judge Handling Climate Lawsuit Worked With Environmental Group Tied To Plaintiffs’ Lawyers)
“This court finds that Baltimore’s complaint is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries. 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,” Brown wrote in the ruling. “Whether the complaint is characterized one way or another, the analysis and the answer are the same — the Constitution’s federal structure does not allow the application of state law to claims like those presented by Baltimore.”
Brown’s legal analysis resembles that of other critics of the climate lawsuit phenomenon, including those who filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court this spring pertaining to Honolulu’s similar climate nuisance lawsuit against oil giants, for example.
Beyond concerns about federalism, other observers have pointed out that different rulings in different courts regarding oil companies’ liability for climate change could imperil national security by undermining national energy production.
“The Court’s well-reasoned opinion recognizes that climate policy cannot be advanced by the unconstitutional application of state law to regulate global emissions,” Theodore Boutrous Jr., Chevron’s counsel, said of the ruling. “As the court stated, Baltimore’s claims are ‘beyond the limits of Maryland state law’ and ‘cannot survive because they are preempted by federal common law (and the Clean Air Act).’ The meritless state tort cases now being orchestrated by a small group of plaintiffs’ lawyers only detract from legitimate progress toward a lower carbon global energy system.”
The office of Democratic Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, BP and ExxonMobil did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Baltimore wants to “limit” their “climate impact” {lol}…..
… they should just stop using the products the oil companies provide.
But they won’t, because they CAN’T. !
So long as they continue to patronize the product they have contributory negligence in their own perceived damages
And Honolulu can close their airports, send the Navy to The Philippines. They can shut all the Hotels, Resorts, and Golf Courses. They can all go back to weaving animal figures from Banana leaves. Meh.
…and accept only those tourist (and their money) that arrived on sailing vessels, with no ICE backup.
However … Pele will shower the islands in more Co2 than the entire mainland releases into the atmosphere in 10 years. So the islanders should bark at Pele too.
Exactly! Perhaps they might want to close down the port of Baltimore….surely all of those container ships account for a lot of emissions. Well, everyone around here saw what that was like when the Key Bridge collapsed a few months ago. All I know is that mayor Scott and our Marxist governor Moore did everything in their power to get that port back open! Its one thing to file a nebulous lawsuit, and another thing entirely to go without! Speaking of the collapsed bridge, I’d love to see them try to build a replacement without the use of fossil fuels….I really don’t think that materials and labor available in pre-industrial times would even come close to doing the job!
Really?
Where?
Please present the evidence Judge Videtta Brown of the Baltimore City Circuit Court.
“Please present the evidence”
Not going to happen ! 🙂
That opening page was the most emotional, meritless, screed I have ever read. It reads like a 6th graders book report on the HORRORS of capitalism and Greedy, Immoral, Corporations. Ha! To call it sophomoric would be an insult to Sophomores everywhere. The IPCC says … ha ha ha ha ha ha … Puhleeze?
https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/17/climate-lawsuit-lawyers-environmental-group/
I see
Dismissed
Dismissed
Dismissed
But I don’t see bit wish I did
Dismissed with prejudice
Meaning the case can’t be refiled
Of course it also doesn’t say
Dismissed without prejudice either
I don’t think it was Exxon’s or BP’s oil that caused the warming. I think it was CNP’s and Sinopec’s and Lukoil’s and Gazprom’s. I am sure the lawyers realize the idiocy of their clients’ claims but, hey, why not milk it? Someone is putting up the money.
This is a start, now those bringing these frivolous lawsuits have to be severely punished.
Like to see temporary injunctions against the plaintiffs from using any and all fossil fuels starting soon after lawsuits are filed. Plus fossil fuels related products.
Isn’t it funny how, when people sniff “free” money, they rush to law…
I wonder if I should be suing grocery stores for selling me food that caused me to live longer which will lead to me dying.
You need to sue farmers that grow corn from which we get the popcorn we eat too much of while reading 35 pages of legalize that can be translated into “Get the hel out of my court room.”
Me: What was the total cost of this court case?
Lawfare, the scourge of the 21st century.
Waiting for just one judge to ask if Plaintiffs have discontinued use of said problem products, and, along with attorneys, will forgo use while the case is heard.
Just have the oil companies petition the courts to ban all oil and oil derived products for the sake of the people of Baltimore (and elsewhere).
This approach will be a true demonstration of what the results will be and since it is a court order, the oil companies cannot be sued as they comply.
Just stop selling petroleum and petroleum-based products in Baltimore. Problem solved.
There are contracts. The oil companies would be sued for breaking them and colluding to deprive Baltimore of product to enrich themselves later.
Congratulations, Theodore Boutrous, Jr. and team. Now STOP promoting the baseless, no-data-to-back-them-up, claims of the human CO2 scammers with ignorant statements like this:
“… progress toward a lower carbon global energy system.”
You don’t need to placate the CO2 cabal. Just keep on defeating them.
I find the worship of the IPCC’s baseless fantasies far more troubling. This case was dismissed, correctly, because states can’t override federal rules.
However, this clown judge, only one step above the activist clown judge in Hawai’i, makes sure to tell us all exactly what federal activist clown judges are going to do when they get the opportunity.
Logic and common sense do not matter in courtrooms. The judicial system is designed to effect political justice, and, right now, climate hysteria is all the rage in politics.
What were the plaintiffs asking for?
Money.
Money solves all problems because it makes victims whole again. People who say “money can’t buy happiness” are not rational. All victims want money.
Just an idle thought… When will law firms (like Sher-Edling) recognize that they are doing is what Einstein (reportedly) defined insanity as: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”?
To me, that defines stupidity, not insanity.