Why a judge should dismiss Charleston’s high-profile climate lawsuit

A Charleston County Circuit judge will soon decide whether to dismiss a high-profile climate lawsuit that would have far-reaching consequences for South Carolina’s economy, legal system and energy future.

The lawsuit should not proceed, as it could set a dangerous precedent that prioritizes politics over practical responses to the environmental issues facing the Palmetto State.

The city of Charleston filed the lawsuit in 2020 seeking to hold numerous energy producers financially liable for allegedly misleading the public about the climate risks of fossil fuels. Yet the lawsuit against South Carolina-based family-owned Brabham Oil Company and others ignores the fact that the claimed causes and impacts of climate change are global and transcend state borders.

Despite its local venue, this lawsuit is also anything but local. In fact, it’s part of a nationwide campaign orchestrated by out-of-state interests such as San Francisco-based law firm Sher Edling LLP and bankrolled by opaque progressive nonprofits like the Rockefeller Family Fund and the New Venture Fund. According to a recent congressional investigation, Sher Edling raked in over $3 million in unreported donations in 2022 and 2023, most of it funneled through nonprofit shell organizations, underscoring the political motives driving these lawsuits.

Fortunately, this misguided legal strategy is failing in courts across the country. State court judges are increasingly recognizing that using state laws to regulate global emissions is an overreach. A Baltimore City Circuit Court judge threw out Baltimore’s climate lawsuit last July. A New York Supreme Court judge similarly rejected New York City’s case in January.

These judges, both of whom were appointed by Democratic governors, pointed out the lawsuits’ constitutional flaws, emphasizing that climate policy must be addressed at the federal level, not through state or local legal actions.

Pointing to these legal failures in Baltimore and New York, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has urged the judge to dismiss Charleston’s case. He argues that these lawsuits not only undermine federal authority but also threaten South Carolina’s economy, which relies heavily on oil and gas.

In 2021, the oil and natural gas industry contributed $13.2 billion to the state’s GDP and supported over 109,000 jobs directly and indirectly. A successful lawsuit could cripple businesses, raise energy costs and utility rates and burden families already struggling amid rising inflation not just in Charleston, but across the state.

These concerns aren’t theoretical. Since his second inauguration in January, President Donald Trump’s administration has taken unprecedented steps to attempt to block similar climate lawsuits. His Department of Justice has filed suits against Hawaii and Michigan to halt pending climate cases, contending these actions violate constitutional principles and interfere with federal energy policy.

Yet despite repeated courtroom failures and opposition from state and federal political leaders, Sher Edling remains undeterred.

The firm continues to file these cases across the country, chasing multimillion-dollar contingency fees while cities like Charleston absorb the financial and political fallout. Charleston Mayor William Cogswell Jr. ran on a platform of “thinking differently” and solving problems head-on. This lawsuit is a relic of a previous administration’s approach and offers him a clear opportunity to change course.

Charleston already has tools at its disposal to address the climate risks it seeks to mitigate. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has delivered billions in federal funding to help cities adapt to extreme weather events — funds that can be used for stormwater upgrades, coastal resilience and green infrastructure. The city’s own 2021 Climate Action Plan provides a blueprint for local emissions reductions and transportation improvements. These are serious, pragmatic efforts. The lawsuit is not.

At the end of the day, litigation is not governance, and Charleston residents deserve better than to be used as pawns in a broader legal scheme by politically motivated environmentalists. It’s time to end this costly charade and focus on strategies that deliver real results, both for Charleston and across all of South Carolina.

Former South Carolina Congressman Jeff Duncan represented the 3rd District and served on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Cover photo: By MSN