A hearing on Baltimore’s opioid crisis was indefinitely delayed after Mayor Brandon Scott’s office warned that holding the hearing could endanger the city’s hopes of securing billions of dollars from drug companies as part of ongoing litigation.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s happened before.

Council President Zeke Cohen on Wednesday called off the hearing, scheduled for next week, upon advice from City Solicitor Ebony Thompson, Cohen’s office said. Last summer, then-Council President Nick Mosby canceled what was effectively the same hearing, also upon advice from the Scott administration.

Both times, Councilmember Mark Conway has been left hanging out to dry after making public calls for transparency on the issue. Conway announced his second attempt at a hearing at last week’s City Council meeting, immediately drawing a rebuke from the Scott administration. It characterized Conway’s decision to hold the hearing as “beyond shameful.”

The only member of council who can cancel another’s hearing, Cohen had avoided wading into the back and forth between Conway and Scott. Until now.

“I want to make sure we are being thoughtful in our approach … and that we’re not in any way endangering any of the money we could bring back,” Cohen said. The city is waiting on a judge to rule on the final portion of the lawsuit, with a decision expected in the coming weeks.

Cohen said he informed Conway of the decision in a long conversation Monday evening and that he also asked Conway to postpone a series of yet-to-be-scheduled town hall meetings that Conway announced Friday in conjunction with State’s Attorney Ivan Bates and Sheriff Sam Cogen, who both endorsed a Scott opponent in last year’s mayoral race.

Cohen said he is committed to publicly discussing the opioid issue — but only after the litigation is complete.

Conway said Wednesday the decision “is what it is.”

“I think there are a lot of strong feelings on this issue, many of which come from myself on the urgency of the matter,” he said.

The mayor’s office praised Cohen’s decision and said the administration looks forward to working with him and “relevant council members” on hearings at a later date.

“His efforts here reflects how critically important this litigation is and showcases the fact that City leadership almost universally understands what is in the best interest of our residents at this moment,” a spokesperson said.

The council hearings have been at the center of an escalating dispute between Conway and the mayor since July, when Scott intervened to cancel Conway’s first hearing. That session was to be convened shortly after The Baltimore Banner and The New York Times published a joint report detailing how the city is suffering from the worst drug crisis ever seen in a major American city.

Scott’s administration has avoided open discussions of the crisis since the story’s publication, pointing to the ongoing litigation with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Baltimore is in the midst of a sprawling lawsuit brought by the city against drug distributors and manufacturers who allegedly flooded the region with the highly addictive prescription painkillers.

Last fall, the suit was heard at trial and a jury found several companies liable. Baltimore has secured $668.5 million thus far via that decision and a number of settlements reached before the case went to trial. A judge is expected to determine in the coming weeks whether to award even more money.

With the first phase of the trial in the books, Conway proceeded with scheduling a hearing, making the announcement from the floor of City Council chambers last week. Scott’s office swiftly struck back, suggesting Conway overstepped his “jurisdiction” in an effort to “center himself in the public narrative.”

“Councilman Conway’s political grandstanding endangers the city’s response rather than helps it,” Bryan Doherty, Scott’s deputy chief of staff, said last week.

Conway said he was “tired of playing games” and accused Scott of making the issue political.

The gamesmanship only escalated, however, with a provocative news release sent by Conway on Friday evening. The councilmember announced he would host a series of “independent” “street hearings” on opioids alongside Bates and Cogen. Both officials have publicly feuded with Scott in the past.

Late Friday, Marvin James, Scott’s chief of staff, posted a vague response on several social media platforms. The post, which suggested the mayor’s staff had been working late into the evening, included a photo of a largely blank whiteboard naming Scott’s second-term priorities. Among them were “opiods” and “District 4,” the council district Conway represents.

Conway acknowledged this week that the inclusion of Bates and Cogen may have further “politicized the issue.” But he maintained that a public discussion was imperative.

“I think it’s really, really important for the city to begin to talk about this if we’re going to begin our process through healing, toward actually rectifying the issues that were initially caused by opioid companies peddling poison in our neighborhoods,” Conway said.

Baltimore recorded 680 overdose deaths last year, down from 1,043 in 2023. That decline mirrored a similar decrease statewide.

Thompson, Baltimore’s solicitor, has argued the judge in the opioid case could be swayed by any public discussion of City Council members, who are technically parties to all litigation involving the city. It’s an argument most on the City Council have found convincing. No other members have proposed hearings to be held ahead of the judge’s decision.

Phylicia Porter, chair of the council’s Public Health and Environment Committee, announced tentative hearings last week to be held after the litigation is complete.

Although Thompson’s litigation protection strategy may be conservative, it’s likely in the city’s best interest, Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, said. Public hearings lead to news coverage, which can in turn influence a judge.

“There’s a line ‘Judges read the papers,’” Tobias said.

With the city potentially in line for such a large payout, a cautious approach is best, even if it comes at the cost of current transparency.

“Most lawyers would agree, when you’re this close to a substantial damage award, you don’t want to jeopardize it or upset the judge because there’s substantial discretion there,” Tobias said.

No matter how the judge rules, it is likely the decision will be appealed.