Maryland Supreme Court Dismisses Landmark Climate Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Giants in Major Defeat for Local Jurisdictions

The Maryland Supreme Court dismissed climate lawsuits against 26 oil companies, ruling that local governments cannot use state law to regulate global emissions.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 25, 2026, 7:17 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from Maryland Matters

A Blow to Local Climate Litigation

The Supreme Court of Maryland issued a scathing majority opinion on Tuesday, effectively ending years of legal efforts by local governments to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate change. The jurisdictions—Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County—had alleged that companies like BP and Chevron engaged in deceptive marketing that downplayed the environmental risks of their products. However, the court ruled that these "creative pleadings" were actually a backdoor attempt to regulate interstate and global emissions, which falls under the federal Clean Air Act rather than state law.

Federal Preemption and Global Harm

Justice Brynja Booth, writing for the majority, emphasized that local governments cannot utilize state law to address global conduct that purportedly causes global harm. The court found that the damages sought by the cities would effectively punish companies for activities occurring far beyond Maryland’s borders. The majority concluded that even if the energy firms had provided different warnings in Maryland, the impact on global greenhouse gas pollution would have been negligible, further reinforcing the idea that the core of the complaint was about emissions rather than simple marketing practices.

A Sharp Dissent from the Bench

The decision was not unanimous, drawing a sharp rebuke from Justice Peter Killough. In his dissent, Killough argued that the majority fell for a "strawman" argument presented by the oil companies. He maintained that the plaintiffs were not challenging EPA permits or seeking to set new emission standards, but were instead focused on fraud and deceptive trade practices. Killough warned that by dismissing the case before the discovery phase, the court had closed the "courthouse door" on legitimate claims that state courts are typically well-equipped to handle.