The U.S. Department of Justice and 24 state Attorneys General urged the Maryland Supreme Court to uphold the dismissal of climate lawsuits filed against U.S. energy companies, arguing in two recent court filings that Maryland law has no authority to regulate emissions beyond its borders. [emphasis, links added]
Over the last year, state judges in Maryland dismissed climate lawsuits brought by the City of Baltimore, the City of Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County.
Now, as the state’s highest court reviews those decisions, the DOJ and 24 state AGs have stepped in to support the rulings – and to defend America’s energy and constitutional integrity.
In its amicus brief, the DOJ argued:
“Extending Maryland law to redress climate-related harms caused by activities that overwhelmingly occurred beyond state and international borders would override policy choices made by the federal government and Maryland’s sister states.” (emphasis added)
The states’ brief, led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, reinforced this point:
“State and local governments cannot regulate the global atmosphere…no one State can ‘enforce its own policy’ on the others.” (emphasis added)
While the plaintiffs maintain that their lawsuits don’t seek to regulate emissions, courts—including those in Maryland—have rejected that spin.
Long-standing precedent establishes that only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate emissions, and, as the DOJ argued, state efforts to do so are unconstitutional:
“Plaintiffs’ attempt to project Maryland law beyond Maryland is not only barred by the CAA—it’s barred by our constitution.” (emphasis added)
Writing for the U.S. DOJ, Adam Gustafson, acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General, argued that the lawsuits’ overreach could worsen the energy crisis and harm U.S. foreign policy:
“The claims effectively sanction foreign commerce and energy promotion at a time the United States faces an energy crisis…The risk that foreign governments will retaliate against American energy interests is substantial.” (emphasis added)
The DOJ’s intervention in Maryland follows the administration’s broader effort to curb what it views as overreach by state-level climate litigation. In May, the DOJ sued Hawaii, Michigan, Vermont, and New York over state actions targeting energy companies, including so-called “climate superfund laws” seeking retroactive fees on legal business operations.
Several other groups have filed briefs supporting the Maryland dismissals, including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and retired military leaders.
NAM and the Chamber have both argued that the federal government, not states, has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
In the brief from retired military officers, they stressed the importance of oil and gas for national security and military preparedness.
Bottom Line: The DOJ, 24 states, industry leaders, and national security voices are aligned: climate lawfare to further a political agenda won’t be allowed to jeopardize America’s energy security or violate the Constitution.
Read more at EID Climate
