The Maryland Supreme Court showed clear skepticism yesterday toward efforts to revive three climate lawsuits brought by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County. The cases, previously dismissed by lower courts, hinged on whether state law can be stretched to demand financial compensation for alleged climate impacts tied to greenhouse gas emissions released far beyond the state’s borders.

During oral arguments, justices pressed plaintiffs’ attorney Vic Sher of Sher Edling to explain how such sweeping global claims could possibly fit within Maryland’s judicial framework. One justice said they’re struggling to “hone in on what this looks like,” while Justice Brynja M. Booth cut to the core:

“It seems like your theory of injury and your relief are all tied and necessarily depend on interstate and international emissions.”

All three cases seek to hold major energy companies liable for global climate impacts. The Maryland justices’ doubts mirror the growing uncertainty around these cases nationwide: while courts in Colorado and Hawaii have allowed similar cases to proceed in state jurisdictions, others in New Jersey, New York City, and Charleston have tossed them out, recognizing that climate policy is a federal, even global, issue.

If the plaintiffs expected a warmer reception at the state’s highest court, they were mistaken. As the Baltimore Sun reports:

“Justices poked holes in Sher’s argument, emphasizing a lack of specific examples of disinformation produced by the companies; a lack of a clear sense of the impact better warning customers in Maryland would have had on local climate change impacts; and the global scope of the companies and the changing climate.”

Sher Edling offered few concrete facts to back claims that energy companies knew more than anyone else about climate risks or that any Maryland consumer was misled. Even when pressed, the plaintiffs failed to say what a “warning” label on energy use should have looked like.

Read the full post at EIDClimate.org.