(The Center Square) – Advocates are calling for justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify federal laws regarding climate change lawsuits.
The Maryland Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a lawsuit from Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County seeking large damages from fossil fuel companies. The government entities claimed the companies misled the public in its contributions to global climate change.
“No amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that the local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm,” Justice Brynja Booth wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
A footnote in the opinion referenced a U.S. Supreme Court case, expected to come in the fall, that would focus on a similar case out of Colorado. Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufactures’ Accountability Project, said this note will give justices on the high court a more pressing reason to address the merits of Colorado’s case.
“It certainly adds fuel to the need for the court to get to the substantive issues in the Boulder case,” Goldberg told The Center Square.
Justices on the court granted certiorari on the case out of Boulder, Colorado, but asked to be briefed on whether they could weigh in on the issues. Currently, the case is still going through the Colorado Supreme Court.
Officials in Boulder County, Colorado, filed a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies using nuisance law claims. The officials argued fossil fuel companies were liable for contributing to emissions that caused climate change.
Goldberg said state courts should not be responsible for regulating global climate change, and praised the Maryland Supreme Court for upholding that standard. He said lawsuits like this violate checks and balances and would leave energy consumers with far higher bills.
“What this litigation stands for is the idea that anybody can sue anybody in state court and try to have the same determination made outside the checks and balances of the legislature,” Goldberg said.
The Maryland court’s decision marks a stark contrast to state Supreme Courts in Colorado and Hawaii that have found the lawsuits do not make an attempt to regulate overall emissions.
In a dissent from Maryland’s majority opinion, Justice Peter Killough said the court made a premature judgment on the case without fully considering the facts.
“The Majority’s conclusion that these cases are tantamount to emissions regulation is not a finding – it is a prediction about what discovery would show, dressed up as a legal conclusion and deployed to close the courthouse door before discovery could confirm or refute it,” Killough wrote.
Goldberg argued that these climate cases would lead to the discovery of a certain fact that validates all of the claims made throughout the lawsuit process. He said these cases get to the heart of energy production in the country and how it can be regulated.
“It’s about what’s the legal structure that applies to producing and promoting energy,” Goldberg said. “To use the energy we need and have access to affordable energy for everyday need.”
Goldberg warned these kinds of lawsuits would force people to change their reliance on typical energy sources for alternative “green energy.”
Goldberg urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Congress’ responsibility to regulate emissions and climate change issues.
“These are policy determinations for Congress and for the federal agencies, not liability issues for courts,” Goldberg said.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall over Boulder’s climate lawsuit case and will likely issue a decision in 2027.