In a significant legal decision, a City Circuit Judge in Baltimore dismissed a lawsuit filed by the city that aimed to hold oil companies, including BP, financially accountable for climate change impacts. Judge Videtta Brown acknowledged the environmental havoc caused by global warming but ruled that Baltimore’s lawsuit exceeded Maryland state law limits. The ruling aligns with BP’s defense that the global nature of emissions makes it impossible to attribute specific damages to their actions alone.

This decision mirrors the arguments in the Sunoco v. City of Honolulu case, where similar claims were made. BP and other defendants argued that climate change impacts stem from worldwide emissions, complicating the attribution of liability to individual companies. Although a Honolulu court had previously ruled in favor of the city, the case is now pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Baltimore attorney Sara Gross expressed the city’s intention to seek a review from a higher court, despite the case already reaching the Supreme Court in 2021 and being rejected on procedural grounds. Judge Brown also dismissed claims that the oil companies misled the public about climate impacts, stating these arguments were an attempt to sidestep the primary issue of global climate change injuries.

The ruling reflects the broader legal landscape where disparate court decisions create complexity. Judge Brown ultimately aligned her decision with a New York City case, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss Baltimore’s complaint for failing to state a valid claim. This outcome underscores the need for federal oversight in climate policy to avoid a chaotic patchwork of state regulations. Ted Boutrous of Gibson Dunn and Crutcher emphasized that such state tort cases hinder genuine progress toward a lower-carbon energy system.