About a month ago, one of the myriad climate change tort lawsuits brought by state and local governments against major fossil fuel producers was dismissed by a state court judge in Baltimore, Maryland.  (These lawsuits have brought state law tort claims, both under common law and individual state statutes, seeking to hold fossil fuel producers liable for the impact of climate change.)  This decision--which will likely be appealed--is the first time that a state court has dismissed in full these type of claims.  While federal courts have previously dismissed similar lawsuits, state courts in a number of jurisdictions have permitted these cases to proceed into the discovery stage of litigation.  That a state court--considered a more favorable forum for this type of litigation--has now dismissed a lawsuit is highly significant. 

Perhaps even more importantly, the reasoning embraced by the state court judge may resonate in similar lawsuits.  Specifically, the court held that “Baltimore's claims cannot survive because they are preempted by federal common law (and the [Clean Air Act]).”  Notably, the judge disagreed with Baltimore's characterization of the case as “address[ing] and hold[ing] Defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign,” instead describing “Baltimore's complaint [as] entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries,” and holding that this case “is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door.”  In other words, the entire legal premise of this type of climate change tort litigation is fundamentally flawed.

While many of the climate change tort cases against major fossil fuel producers continue to proceed, it will be interesting to see whether additional courts adopt the reasoning here and preclude certain of these climate change tort cases from advancing further.