Maryland’s highest court heard arguments Monday in three lawsuits filed by Baltimore City, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County against major oil companies, including BP. The local governments claim the companies knowingly misled the public about the dangers of fossil fuel use and contributed to alleged climate-related damages like sea-level rise and extreme weather.
Lower courts previously dismissed the lawsuits, prompting an appeal to the Maryland Supreme Court. During oral arguments, justices appeared skeptical of the plaintiffs’ claims, questioning both the legal theory and the potential global impact of a state-level ruling.
Attorney Victor Sher, representing the local governments, argued fossil fuel companies failed to warn consumers about climate-related risks tied to their products. He cited internal research by BP dating back to the 1960s, claiming the company foresaw “catastrophic effects” but instead chose to protect its own infrastructure while allegedly misleading the public.
Justice Steven Gould pressed Sher to provide an example of what kind of warnings should have been issued. Sher failed to offer a clear answer. Justice Brynja Booth questioned the legal connection between local harm and the global nature of carbon emissions, suggesting the plaintiffs’ claims might exceed the scope of state authority.
BP’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous, rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments. He said Maryland law cannot be applied to global emissions and emphasized that regulation of emissions is a federal matter handled by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency. Boutrous also pointed to the Clean Air Act, which sets national standards and preempts local attempts to impose additional requirements on emissions or labeling.
Boutrous warned that granting the requested relief would amount to Maryland courts legislating global environmental policy—an overreach he said would undermine the EPA’s established regulatory framework. He argued the proper avenue for such changes is through Congress, not through state lawsuits.
Similar lawsuits have been filed by other states and municipalities, including in Hawaii and Colorado. Opponents of these efforts maintain that oil companies have complied with all existing federal laws, and any additional climate regulations should come through legislative channels rather than judicial mandates.
The Maryland Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the combined cases in the coming weeks.
