Baltimore’s lawsuit seeking to hold oil and gas companies accountable for the effects of climate change on the city was dismissed Wednesday by a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge.

Originally filed in 2018, the suit has been mired in complex procedural disputes practically ever since, bouncing from court to court — including the U.S. Supreme Court, which resolved one legal question in 2021, allowing the case to continue.

In a statement Thursday, the Baltimore City law department vowed to appeal the dismissal.

“We respectfully disagree with this opinion and will be seeking review from a higher court,” said Sara Gross, chief of the Baltimore City Department of Law’s Affirmative Litigation Division.

City officials declined to comment further on the ruling.

Similar cases have been filed by Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, as well as a number of other cities and states in the U.S., but none have gone to trial.

After the state supreme court of Hawaii ruled that Honolulu’s case could go forward to trial, the energy companies petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. If the high court takes up the matter, the ruling could determine the future for all such cases.

Last month, the Supreme Court sought input from the Biden administration on the appeal, an indication that the justices could be interested in hearing the case.

Like the others, Baltimore’s case argued that the companies, including ExxonMobil and Chevron, deceptively promoted fossil fuels, despite knowing that their use posed a powerful threat of warming the world.

For years, attorneys in the case have battled over whether it should be heard in federal or state courts. The fossil fuel companies generally argued the cases belonged in federal courts, if anywhere, whereas localities argued they should be heard in state courts, which they considered a more favorable venue.

In her ruling Wednesday, Judge Videtta A. Brown dismissed the city’s claims under state law, a first for this type of climate change litigation. The city argued that its case was merely focused on the oil and gas companies’ deceitful marketing, which caused increased use of fossil fuels, spurring climate change impacts on city infrastructure, such as more frequent flooding. But Brown ruled that the city was truly trying to receive damages for fossil fuel emissions — not just deceptive marketing — and those interstate emissions are regulated by the federal government, including the Environmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the city cannot sue over it, according to Brown.

“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,” Brown wrote in her ruling.

Brown said her ruling aligned with a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which dismissed New York City’s climate lawsuit from federal court.

“Global pollution-based complaints were never intended by Congress to be handled by individual states,” Brown wrote.

In a statement Wednesday, an attorney for Chevron applauded the judge’s ruling.

“Climate policy cannot be advanced by the unconstitutional application of state law to regulate global emissions,” wrote Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.

In her decision, Brown also ruled on the merits of the city’s case, finding it deficient under state law.

While the city argued that the fossil fuel companies’ products posed a public and private nuisance, Brown ruled that greenhouse gas emissions wouldn’t be considered a nuisance under the state law for which the oil and gas companies could be held liable.

“Fossil fuels are a lawful consumer product guided and regulated by the EPA,” Brown wrote. “Baltimore does not allege that the Defendants directly released a hazardous chemical into the waters or lands of Baltimore at the point of sale.”

The city also argued that fossil fuel companies had a duty to warn Baltimore about the ill effects associated with burning fossil fuels.

But Brown disagreed.

“Baltimore does not allege that its injury comes from its own use of or direct exposure to Defendant’s fossil fuels but from consumers’ decisions to use fossil fuels across the globe for many years,” Brown wrote.

The city cited trespassing law against fossil fuel companies, arguing that the impacts of climate change were infringing upon city property, such as the city’s stormwater infrastructure, particularly near the Jones Falls, Gwynns Falls and Herring Run streams, which could be overwhelmed by more frequent and intense rainfall anticipated as a result of climate change.

Brown ruled that the link between the fossil fuel companies’ deceptive marketing and the harms to city property were too weak for trespass law to be applied, under state law. She also took issue with the city’s claims of a design defect in the company’s products, arguing that the side effects of fossil fuel use were not a design flaw.

Finally, Brown ruled against the city’s attempt to use the Maryland Consumer Protection Act to hold the companies liable, ruling that the law imposes a three-year statute of limitations, and Baltimore knew about the negative consequences of fossil fuel emissions for more than three years prior to filing the case.

In a statement, Phil Goldberg, special counsel to the Manufacturers Accountability Project, hailed Brown’s ruling.

“As the Circuit Court for Baltimore City stated in its opinion, Baltimore’s complaint is ‘artful but not sustainable,’ ” Goldberg wrote. “Regulation of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions is beyond the role of state law and must be governed by uniform federal law.”

In his statement, Goldberg said that differing rulings about the climate cases in various states underscore “why the Supreme Court should hear the Honolulu appeal and establish a uniform rule of federal law that can be applied wherever these cases are brought.”

The Manufacturers Accountability Project was started by the legal arm of the National Association of Manufacturers, which represents small and large manufacturing companies throughout the U.S. The project began in response to the “troubling litigation model” of localities and states using the courts to address complex regulatory matters like climate change, according to its website.

“The lawsuits are structured to enrich the plaintiffs’ lawyers who successfully lobby state and local governments to hire them to bring such suits on their behalf but would do little to solve the underlying problems they purport to address,” reads the project’s website.

Baltimore hired the San Francisco firm Sher Edling to help litigate the case, which is also handling climate cases for other cities and states. The firm does not collect payment unless the cases are resolved by trial or settlement.

At least one other Maryland locality — Baltimore County — considered bringing a similar suit but declined to do so.