By Jeffrey Karp, Senior Counsel, and Edward Mahaffey, Legal Research and Writing Attorney
Over the past few years, several state and local governments have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, seeking money damages for the effects of climate change on their jurisdictions.[1] These lawsuits serve multiple potential functions; for example, in addition to the award of damages if successful, they may reveal new information about the companies’ decision-making via the discovery process that may lead to further litigation, and may affect the public perception of climate-related issues.[2]
For the most part, thus far the courts have not had a chance to address the substantive issues because of the lengthy procedural battles that have first occurred concerning whether the lawsuits should be pursued in state or federal courts. The case this article focuses on will therefore be an ongoing one, Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C. The procedural questions in this case have resulted in a US Supreme Court decision that has affected other climate change cases recently.[3] But the significance of Baltimore for our purposes is the substantive issues raised in the complaint, the motions to dismiss, and the responses to the motions. They provide a case study of a relatively typical municipal lawsuit against fossil fuel companies, in which both sides have articulated an array of arguments demonstrating the wide range of legal issues involved.