The Supreme Court of Maryland dismissed climate change lawsuits from three local governments against fossil fuel companies, a move that could have implications for similar legislative efforts in New Jersey, according to a Mar. 27 report.
The decision is significant as it may influence the fate of the Climate Superfund Act bill being considered by New Jersey lawmakers. Legal experts say both the Maryland case and the proposed New Jersey law face challenges related to federal regulations on air pollution.
Ray Cantor, Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer at the New Jersey Business and Industry Association (NJBIA), said there are legal similarities between Maryland’s case and what might happen if New Jersey passes its own law. “It’s important to remember that anything can happen in a court of law, so we can’t get too far ahead of ourselves,” Cantor said. “But there are legal parallels here that are very similar.” He added, “The Maryland Supreme Court and other courts around the country are seeing these lawsuits as a local or regional attempt to regulate an international issue. And they’re saying it goes directly against the Clean Air Act.”
In Maryland, local governments argued that oil and gas companies contributed to climate change by misleading consumers about fossil fuels’ dangers. The state’s high court ruled by a 6-1 vote that such cases fall under federal jurisdiction because they concern interstate pollution regulation. Justice Brynja Booth wrote, “No amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that the local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm.”
Cantor explained why he believes similar legislation would face hurdles in New Jersey: “The Clean Air Act was created by Congress for the purpose of creating a national framework for regulating air,” Cantor said. “Climate is about global atmospheric conditions and states don’t have the authority to regulate out-of-state emissions or impose a liability for whatever may be going on with the planet.” He also pointed out practical limitations: “New Jersey contributes just 1.7% of U.S greenhouse gas emissions and only 0.3% worldwide,” according to data from federal agencies.
Cantor further raised concerns about retroactive penalties: “The retroactive nature of the Climate Superfund Act — penalizing businesses after the fact for activities that federal and state governments not only permitted, but affirmatively encouraged for decades as part of national energy policy – raises some pretty serious legal concerns.” He continued, “We also firmly believe the bill goes against the interstate commerce clause of the U.S Constitution… The attempt to regulate that conduct beyond state borders would appear to go against the U.S Commerce Clause.”
Similar laws have been advanced in other states such as New York and Vermont; however, both states now face lawsuits from federal authorities who call their statutes “lawless overreach.” The U.S Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute also filed suit last year against Vermont over its new climate superfund law.
The NJBIA serves private-sector employers throughout New Jersey according to its official website. It represents employers across various sectors nationwide according to its official website, advances competitive excellence among members according to its official website, facilitates partnerships among businesses, government entities, and academic institutions according to its official website, offers advocacy along with practical information according to its official website, and Michele Siekerka serves as president and chief executive officer according to its official website.
Decisions regarding pending lawsuits in other states are still awaited.
