Climate Change Suits Against Energy Companies Tossed by U.S. State Courts
On January 23, 2025, in an opinion for City of Annapolis v. BP PLC, et al. and Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. BP PLC, et al., the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, dismissed two cases brought by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County against several corporate members of the oil and energy industry. The court held that federal law preempted the state-law claims brought by the county and city. In 2021, the county and city brought claims against the oil and energy companies for public and private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, trespass, and the Consumer Protection Act.
In its January 23 decision, the Court acknowledged that it had reconsidered its decision to defer decision on earlier motions to dismiss filed by the defendants and was persuaded by the results from similar litigation across the country, including cases from the Second Circuit and the Superior Court of Delaware. The Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County was further compelled by Senior Judge Videtta A. Brown's decision in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., et al., where Judge Brown found "the Constitution's federal structure does not allow the application of state law to claims like those presented by Baltimore." Additionally, the court found the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut instructive on the likely ultimate disposition of issues arising out of the introduction of fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce and any alleged connection between these products to climate change. See American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011).
Ultimately, the court granted the oil and energy companies' motions to dismiss on the grounds of preemption for essentially the same reasons as Judge Brown of the Circuit Court of Baltimore: that the U.S. Constitution's federal structure does not allow the application of state law to claims like those presented in the New York, Delaware, and Baltimore cases. The court, however, did not address the merits of the state law claims. The City of Annapolis and County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, has already appealed the court's ruling.
On the heels of the Maryland state court decision, on February 5, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey threw out a similar lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey against several oil and energy companies, finding that the state's claims are preempted by federal law. See Platkin v Exxon Mobil Corp. et al., No. MER-L-001797-22 (N.J. Super. Ct. Feb. 5, 2025). The State of New Jersey similarly claimed the oil and energy companies were negligent, failed to warn the public about the adverse climate impacts of their products, trespassed, created public and private nuisance, violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and impaired the public trust. Like the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the Superior Court of New Jersey was similarly persuaded by the Second Circuit, the Delaware State Court, the Maryland State Court, and the Supreme Court's decision in American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut.The Superior Court of New Jersey was most persuaded by the Second Circuit's decision that despite the state's artful pleading, the complaint is entirely about seeking damages for injuries resulting from interstate and global emissions, which is exclusively a federal law issue. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General plans to appeal the court's ruling.
The Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland and the Superior Court of New Jersey's decisions join the growing consensus among federal and state courts across the country that these types of state law tort claims are preempted by federal law.
