What Judges Are Saying: Dismissals of Climate Litigation Over the Years

Throughout the nationally-coordinated climate litigation campaign, plaintiffs have been determined to use state courts to try and achieve national energy policy. Unfortunately – and a bit ironically – that strategy isn’t playing out well, with a suite of defeats on the merits adding up to a dismal future for climate litigation.

On the heels of recent decisions dismissing cases brought by New York City, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland, read on for a look at rulings to date and highlighted key quotes from the judges. Bolding has been added throughout for emphasis.

Judge Reconsiders, Throws Out Annapolis and Anne Arundel’s Climate Lawsuits

In January 2025, Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Steve Platt dismissed lawsuits filed by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, citing previous opinions rejecting similar cases:

“Upon further review, this court is now persuaded that the logic of the disposition and the authorities cited by Senior Judge Videtta A. Brown in the Baltimore Case, the ruling by the Superior Court Judge in the Delaware case, and the ruling in the New York Case as well as the Second Circuit’s affirmance of that ruling compel dismissal of these cases for Court’s decision last July to dismiss the reasons stated below.”

“This court therefore holds that the U.S. Constitution’s federal structure does not allow the application of state court claims like those presented in the instant cases… The Superior Court of the state of Delaware found ‘that claims in this case seeking damages for injuries resulting from out-of-state or global greenhouse emissions and interstate pollution, are pre-empted by [the Clean Air Act] and that ‘these claims are beyond the limits of Delaware Common law.’”

“The States such as Plaintiffs here, the City of Annapolis and the County of Anne Arundel can participate in the efforts to limit emissions collaboratively, but not in the form of litigation.”

New York City Suffers Second Consecutive Loss

In January 2025, New York Supreme Court Judge Anar Rathod Patel dismissed New York’s second-attempted climate lawsuit, finding that the city’s claims did not sufficiently make the case that oil companies could have deceived the public about the climate impacts of oil and gas:

“The City cannot have it both ways by, on one hand, asserting that consumers are aware of and commercially sensitive to the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, and, on the other hand, that the same customers are being duped by Defendants’ failure to disclose that their fossil fuel products emit greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.”

“Second, the City has not sufficiently pled that Defendants’ alleged greenwashing campaigns, involving statements about clean energy and alternative energy sources, are ‘made in connection with the sale’ of a consumer good (i.e. fossil fuel products) in NYC, as required under CPL.”

“Certain of the alleged statements are distortions of statements that have been taken out of context and Plaintiff does not – and cannot – allege that each statement when viewed ‘in light of its context on the product label or advertisement as a whole’ is misleading to the reasonable consumer.”

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Dismisses Climate Lawsuit

In July 2024, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown dismissed Baltimore’s climate lawsuit, concluding that state law cannot be used to advance national energy policy and address a global phenomenon such as climate change:

“The Constitution’s federal structure does not allow the application of state law to claims like those presented by Baltimore… The Supreme Court of the United States has held that state law cannot be used to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries caused by out of state pollution (sources).”

“The explanation by Baltimore that it only seeks to address and hold Defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door.”

“The Defendants’ products have not been deemed dangerous in and of themselves. Fossil fuels are a lawful consumer product guided and regulated by the EPA. Even if the products’ normal function was dangerous, liability still would not attach.”

Judge Dismisses Claims, Significantly Narrows Scope of Delaware Case

In January 2024, Delaware Superior Court Judge Mary Johnston ruled that the federal Clean Air Act preempted Delaware’s claims seeking damages for injuries resulting from out-of-state or global greenhouse gas emissions, thus narrowing the scope of the suit only to emissions that occurred within the state of Delaware:

“This Court finds that claims in this case seeking damages for injuries resulting from out-of-state or global greenhouse emissions and interstate pollution, are pre-empted by the [Clean Air Act]. Thus, these claims are beyond the limits of Delaware common law.”

“Defendants have provided have provided evidence showing that the general public had knowledge of or had access to information about the disputes, regarding the existence of climate change and effects, decades prior to the expiration of the five-year limitations period, this information and evidence is unrefuted by the state.”

Trial Judge Dismisses NYC Climate Suit, Second Circuit Confirms Dismissal on Appeal

In July 2018, U.S. District Court Judge John Keenan dismissed New York City’s public nuisance lawsuit. He explained “the serious problems caused [by climate change] are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government.”

“The Court recognizes that the City, and many other governmental entities around the United States and in other nations, will be forced to grapple with the harmful impacts of climate change in the coming decades. However, the immense and complicated problem of global warming requires a comprehensive solution that weighs the global benefits of fossil fuel use with the gravity of the impending harms. To litigate such an action for injuries from foreign greenhouse gas emissions in federal court would severely infringe upon the foreign-policy decisions that are squarely within the purview of the political branches of the U.S. Government.”

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected New York City’s appeal to revive its lawsuit in April 2021. In a 51-page decision, the unanimous three judge panel wrote that global warming “is a uniquely international concern” that should be handled through federal and international policy, not the judicial branch:

“The question before us is whether the municipalities may utilize state tort law to hold multinational oil companies liable for damages caused by global greenhouse gas emissions. Given the nature of the harm and the existence of a complex web of federal and international environmental law regulating such emissions, we hold that the answer is ‘no.’”

“To permit this suit to proceed under state law would further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between the prevention of global warming, a project that necessarily requires national standard and global participation, on the one hand, and energy production, economic growth, foreign policy and national security, on the other.”

“Thus, while the City is not expressly seeking to impose a standard of care or emission restrictions on the Producers, the goal of its lawsuit is perhaps even more ambitious: to effectively impose strict liability for the damages caused by fossil fuel emissions no matter where in the world those emissions were released (or who released them). If the Producers want to avoid all liability, then their only solution would be to cease global production altogether.”

NYAG’s “Hyperbolic” Climate Lawsuit Dismissed in New York Supreme Court

In December 2019, New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager ruled in favor of ExxonMobil and against the New York Attorney General’s climate lawsuit, and current New York Attorney General Letitia James decided to drop all allegations:

“The Office of the Attorney General offered no testimony from any investor who claims to have been misled.”

“What the evidence at trial revealed is that ExxonMobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible.”

“In sum, the Office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor. The Office of the Attorney General produced no testimony either from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure, even though the Office of the Attorney General had previously represented it would call such individuals as trial witnesses.”

Bottom Line: Climate activists have banked on using liberal state legislatures and courts to push their climate lawsuits – with results now backfiring. With an increasing number of judges in Democratic states rejecting the claims of these climate lawsuits, expect the nationally-coordinated climate litigation campaign to explore other avenues to try and achieve their goal of bankrupting American energy companies, even if it’s against the will of voters and sound legal theory.

Read the full post at EIDClimate.org.

The post What Judges Are Saying: Dismissals of Climate Litigation Over the Years appeared first on .