It turns out that New York City is hardly the only climate plaintiff to face the January blues this year. Yesterday, the Anne Arundel Circuit Court dismissed Annapolis and Anne Arundel’s climate lawsuits against America’s energy industry, delivering yet another devastating blow to the already struggling, nationally-coordinated climate litigation campaign.

Notably, less than a year ago, Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Steve Platt denied energy companies’ motions to dismiss the pair of Maryland municipalities’ climate litigation cases. However, after the plaintiffs filed retooled complaints in June 2024 and energy company defendants responded with new motions to dismiss, Judge Platt found himself “persuaded on this second go-round.”

Specifically, he referenced the nearby Baltimore Circuit Court’s decision to dismiss Baltimore’s case, along with other recent decisions to throw out similar lawsuits filed in other states:

“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 a similar the reasons stated below.” (emphasis added)

After climate plaintiffs spent years fighting for these cases to be heard in state court, and even despite SCOTUS’ refusal to intervene, the strategy is clearly not panning out in favor of the activists and their wealthy backers.

Racking up recent defeats in cases brought by Delaware, Baltimore, New York City, and now Anne Arundel County and Annapolis, champions of the litigation must face a reckoning over the millions of dollars spent on the struggling Rockefeller-backed lawfare campaign.

Judge: U.S. Constitution Does Not Permit Climate Lawsuits in State Courtrooms

Referencing judges’ prior rulings in Delaware, New York, and Baltimore, Judge Platt asserted that the U.S. Constitution does not permit plaintiffs to sue energy companies under state law for the effects of global climate change:

“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, arc pre-empted by the [Clean Air Act] and that ‘these claims are beyond the limits of Delaware common law.’” (emphasis added)

Moreover, Judge Platt made it clear that while states and municipalities can work to combat the effects of climate change through collaborative policy or legislation, they are not permitted to do so through lawsuits that impact companies operating lawfully in other jurisdictions across the country:

“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.” (emphasis added)

In fact, Judge Platt acknowledged that when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the unanimous opinion in AEP v. Connecticut, she specifically barred a “parallel track” that seeks to achieve climate goals through the courts:

“The clear message to be had, and this Court gets it, is as Justice Ginsburg for a unanimous Supreme Court says is that there is a prescribed order of decision-making – first by the expert then by federal judges. If states and municipalities [and] even private parties are dissatisfied with the Federal rule making or the outcome of cases, they may seek federal court review. ‘There is no room for a parallel track’ (federal or state).” (emphasis added)

Judge Platt’s reference of late Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in AEP is in line with the recent dismissal of Baltimore’s case, in which the court made clear that climate suits are an unlawful attempt to “get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door.”

Bottom line: Climate litigation proponents continue to get schooled by state court judges who clearly understand that climate lawsuits are inherently flawed and have no place in our judicial system. How long will it be before they heed their advice and drop this anti-energy, frivolous campaign once and for all?