• What happened: A Maryland state judge has dismissed Baltimore’s climate nuisance lawsuit–the first such dismissal in the nation–saying the litigation went “beyond the limits of state law.”
  • While federal judges have previously dismissed lawsuits that made state-based nuisance claims, this case marks the first time a state judge has done so.
• A troubling trend: Public nuisance lawsuits—including those related to climate change—have evolved as a means for local and state governments to attempt to pad their budgets and for activists to bypass the appropriate legislative process to target legal products and activities they don’t like.

• Worth mentioning: While this is a step in the right direction, dozens of other climate nuisance cases remain pending. A coalition of 20 attorneys general (Including Texas) has filed an amicus brief in one of the cases arguing that states and local governments are improperly attempting to regulate interstate greenhouse gas emissions under state law, which is a federal responsibility.

• In her own words: “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.”–Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown

• TLR Thoughts: It will likely take years to resolve the pending climate nuisance cases. With thousands of Texas jobs at risk, the Texas Legislature should establish guardrails to clarify cases the public nuisance doctrine should not apply to—namely those targeting legal or permitted activities.

Read the full article here.