Maryland’s Highest Court Rejects Expansive Public Nuisance Theory in Landmark Decision
The Supreme Court of Maryland recently issued a significant decision that may dramatically reshape public nuisance litigation across the state. In Express Scripts, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County, Anne Arundel County sued a group of pharmacy benefit managers, mail-order pharmacies and retail pharmacies over their alleged role in the opioid epidemic. The Court rejected the theory being increasingly advanced by local governments seeking to impose liability on companies for the downstream misuse, diversion, or abuse of otherwise lawful products.
The decision carries substantial implications not only for opioid-related litigation, but also for future public nuisance claims involving firearms, vaping products, environmental harms, social media platforms and other industries facing attempts to expand traditional tort liability. In rejecting Anne Arundel County’s claims, the Court expressly concluded:
“[T]here is no public right to be free from the adverse effects associated with a lawful product being diverted, misused, or abused.”
The Court emphasized that public nuisance law has historically been limited in scope and cannot be transformed into a sweeping mechanism for imposing industry-wide liability whenever a lawful product later contributes to societal harm.
The opinion repeatedly warned against using courts to create broad policy remedies better suited for legislative action. The Court recognized that while the societal impacts associated with opioid addiction and related harms are serious, expanding public nuisance doctrine beyond its traditional boundaries would improperly convert courts into policymakers.
Why This Decision Matters
Over the past several years, state and local governments nationwide have increasingly pursued public nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, and related entities tied to lawful products. These suits often attempt to recover massive governmental expenditures associated with public health crises or criminal misuse of products. Maryland jurisdictions have participated in that trend, including through litigation that resulted in substantial settlements reportedly totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.
This decision now places significant limitations on future attempts to pursue similar claims under Maryland law. Importantly, the Court’s reasoning extends well beyond the opioid context. The opinion signals substantial judicial skepticism toward efforts to stretch public nuisance law into a generalized tool for addressing broad social problems where lawful products are involved.
Potential Impact on Pending Litigation
The ruling is expected to have immediate ramifications for pending public nuisance actions throughout Maryland. Defendants facing claims premised on the downstream misuse or abuse of lawful products will rely heavily on this opinion in seeking dismissal or limitation of such claims. The decision also provides businesses with stronger grounds to challenge attempts to impose liability that depart from traditional tort principles. For companies operating in highly regulated industries, the opinion serves as an important reaffirmation that compliance with legislative and regulatory frameworks matters, and that courts should not create new common-law duties inconsistent with established Maryland precedent.
For more information, contact Stephen Marshall, Esq.
