In 2018, climate activists hailed Baltimore’s lawsuit against energy companies as “the next in a growing wave” of climate liability lawsuits. Eight years later, that wave has crashed in Maryland.

The ordinary 90-day window to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Maryland Supreme Court’s March 24 decision has passed without fanfare, leaving the dismissals of Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County’s climate lawsuits intact.

For the climate litigation campaign, that silence is telling. These cases were once promoted as part of coordinated legal strategy to force energy companies to pay for global climate change through local courts. Instead, Maryland’s highest court delivered one of the campaign’s clearest defeats yet – rejecting the lawsuits from top to bottom.

A Major Problem for the National Campaign

Maryland’s final defeat comes at a critical moment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s refusal to dismiss Boulder’s climate lawsuit. When granting review, the Court also asked the parties to brief whether it has jurisdiction to review the ruling at this stage in the litigation. The Maryland Supreme Court’s now final decision answers that question.

In the Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling, the justices were explicit about why: they wanted to give SCOTUS “the benefit of a high court’s analysis that is different from that expressed by our colleagues on the high courts of Colorado and Hawaii.” This created a clear split between Maryland’s Supreme Court and state supreme courts in Colorado and Hawaii that ruled against the companies.

Now, SCOTUS has clear jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and has an opportunity to put an end to the nationwide lawfare campaign against the U.S. energy industry.

The Writing Was on the Wall

Lawmakers in Maryland have long seen the signs that this climate litigation lacks legal merit. Recognizing this, they pivoted, joining New York and Vermont in pursuit of Rockefeller-funded “climate superfund” efforts that retroactively charge energy companies for the costs of climate adaptation projects.

Even those superfund efforts in Maryland have faced hurdles. Maryland’s own climate superfund bill was downgraded to a study amid bipartisan concern about the impact on energy affordability. Governor Wes Moore initially opposed even the downgraded version, refusing to sign the bill amid budget concerns. He later reversed course and backed the study after it became clear the state legislature was prepared to override his veto.

That pivot reveals the basic problem. If activists cannot get courts to impose sweeping climate liability through nuisance, trespass, and failure-to-warn claims, they will try to get legislatures to impose the same costs by another name.

But Maryland shows both paths face serious legal, fiscal, and affordability concerns.

Bottom Line: Despite activist promises, Maryland’s climate lawsuits have quietly joined the growing list of failed attempts to bankrupt the U.S. energy industry. The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling also came at the perfect time, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Boulder’s similar climate lawsuit.