A judge in Charleston, S.C., dismissed on Wednesday the city’s lawsuit against oil and gas companies over their role in climate change, ruling that the case raised questions that were far beyond the bounds of state laws.
During two days of hearings in May, lawyers for the city argued that the companies, ranging from giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron to local firms, had covered up what they knew about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions. They accused the companies of mounting a disinformation campaign to cast doubt on climate science and failing to warn the public about the dangers ahead.
Those actions increased demand for fossil fuels, which led to emissions and the grave risks linked to climate change that the historic coastal city now faces, including flooding and sea-level rise, they argued. The case cited state tort laws and the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act and sought funds for adaptation and mitigation projects.
In his 45-page decision, Judge Roger M. Young wrote that while the lawyers argued the claims were about deception, “they are premised on, and seek redress for, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.” He said that those issues fall squarely under federal and not state law, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over out-of-state companies.
He cited a 2021 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a similar lawsuit filed by New York City against oil companies. In that case, Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the Circuit Court addressed whether the municipalities could use state tort laws to hold multinational companies liable for damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
“Given the nature of the harm and the existence of a complex web of federal and international environmental law regulating such emissions, we hold that the answer is ‘no,’” Judge Sullivan wrote.
In Charleston, the defendants argued that the lawsuit was pre-empted by federal law, and that the case raised political questions that should be addressed by other branches of government.
The city declined to comment immediately after the ruling. A spokeswoman said that Charleston was considering whether to appeal.
Roughly three dozen similar cases have been filed across the country since 2017, mostly by Democratic-led states, cities and municipalities. Charleston’s case was filed in 2020 by a Democratic mayor and allowed to continue by his Republican successor. South Carolina’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, also a Republican, had submitted an amicus brief to the court supporting the defendants’ arguments.
Charleston was an early test of the Trump administration’s possible impact on these lawsuits. In April, President Trump issued an executive order calling the legal complaints a threat to national security, saying they could lead to crippling damages. That led the Justice Department to file unusual lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan seeking to prevent them from filing their own climate-change suits. (Hawaii filed soon afterward, and Michigan may still do so.) Judge Young asked each side to weigh in on the impact of the executive order on their cases, but did not discuss the filings in the decision.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents Chevron and argued on behalf of all of the companies before Judge Young in Charleston, applauded the decision. He said it added to a “growing chorus” of dismissals in climate lawsuits, including in cases brought by Baltimore, New Jersey and Bucks County, Pa., among other places.
But supporters of the litigation point to three state supreme courts that have affirmed lower court rulings against the companies’ motions to dismiss, in cases brought by Boulder, Colo., Honolulu and the state of Massachusetts.
In Charleston, Judge Young echoed decisions in favor of the defendants in other cases, writing that the lawsuits would create a “chaotic web of conflicting legal obligations” for companies as municipalities imposed de facto regulations on fossil fuels. The remedy “must rest with the federal political branches that are legally and substantively equipped to address them,” he wrote.
Judge Young also expressed concern that the theory of liability in the case “appears almost limitless.” Under its logic, he wrote, “virtually anyone could be a plaintiff — and a defendant — in what would effectively amount to a perpetual series of lawsuits that reset after every storm.”
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for the Climate desk and the courtroom clashes playing out over climate and environmental policy.
The post Charleston’s Climate Lawsuit Against Oil Giants Is Dismissed appeared first on New York Times.
