South Carolina Court Dismisses City’s Climate Litigation Against Energy Companies

The decision, which we break down in detail below, is the latest in a series of state and federal decisions that have rejected attempts by municipalities to use state law as a vehicle to address climate change.

The decision is notable for a few reasons. First, it explicitly rejects the use of state law as a tool to address global climate harms, diverging from recent international trends, including the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion on state responsibility for climate change. (For more, see here.)

Second, the decision marks a development in the ongoing debate over the proper forum and legal theory for addressing climate change harms. In this court’s view, state law claims seeking to redress global climate change are preempted and precluded by the federal constitutional structure and the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The court’s rationale stands in sharp contrast to the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion, which suggested that states have affirmative obligations under international law to address climate change and may be held accountable for transboundary harms. While the ICJ’s opinion perhaps reflects a growing international consensus on the need for robust climate action, the South Carolina decision underscores the hesitancy of certain domestic courts to adjudicate claims that implicate global emissions.

The Court’s Decision

Charleston’s complaint pleaded six causes of action: Public and private nuisance, strict liability and negligent failure to warn, trespass, and violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). Charleston alleged that the defendant energy companies not only produced and sold fossil fuels but also engaged in a decades-long campaign to mislead the public about the risks of climate change, thereby inflating demand and exacerbating climate harms.

The court, however, was unpersuaded by Charleston’s attempt to frame its claims as traditional state-law torts or consumer protection violations. Drawing heavily on the Second Circuit’s reasoning in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., the court concluded that the “artful pleading” could not disguise the true nature of the claims: An effort to hold energy companies liable for the cumulative effects of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Highlights from the decision:

• Federal Preemption: The federal Constitution precludes states from using their own laws to resolve disputes involving interstate and international emissions. These matters, the court reasoned, are “uniquely federal interests” that demand a uniform federal rule, not a patchwork of state standards.
• CAA Preemption: CAA provides a comprehensive federal framework for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, leaving no room for state-law claims that would effectively regulate out-of-state or international emissions.
• Political Question Doctrine: Charleston’s claims raised non-justiciable political questions, as they would require the judiciary to make complex policy determinations best left to the legislative and executive branches about the appropriate level of regulation for greenhouse gas emissions.
• Courts Lack Necessary Scientific Expertise: The decision notes that “courts lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources to address these issues,” and that such cases would require “sensitive policy determinations meant for nonjudicial discretion.” Climate-related cases require courts to resolve complex scientific, economic, and policy questions — including the causal link between specific emissions and particular climate harms, or the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic development — that are typically the province of expert agencies and legislatures.
• State Law Deficiencies: Alternatively, the court found that the claims failed as a matter of South Carolina law. The court noted that South Carolina has not recognized nuisance or trespass claims based on the lawful production and sale of consumer products, nor does it impose a duty to warn the public about widely known risks like those associated with fossil fuel use.

Finally, the court also found the claims time-barred and determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

In sum, the court joined what it called a “growing chorus” of state and federal courts that have dismissed similar climate change lawsuits, warning that allowing these claims would create a “chaotic web of conflicting legal obligations,” and undermine the federal government’s exclusive authority over interstate and international pollution.

Broader Policy Context

For those working in the climate space, this decision reflects the continuing legal tumult touching virtually every issue impacting climate. The decision notes various tensions.

• Federal Primacy in Climate Regulation: In the court’s view, the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions — especially those with interstate and international effects — falls under federal laws, with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because of CAA in the lead. State and local governments seeking to address climate harms must do so within the confines of federal regulatory frameworks or through political advocacy at the federal level. The Trump Administration agrees with this position. The May Executive Order “Protecting American Energy From State Overreach,” seeks to limit state climate change laws that the Trump Administration claims are harming domestic energy production. (For more, see here.)

• Limits of State Tort and Consumer Protection Law: The court’s refusal to extend nuisance, trespass, or failure-to-warn doctrines to address global climate harms signals a reluctance to transform traditional state-law causes of action into de facto climate regulations.

• Contrast with International Developments: The decision does not reflect recent international developments. The divergence from the ICJ’s advisory opinion highlights a growing gap between international expectations and domestic legal realities in the United States. While international bodies may articulate broad principles of state responsibility for climate change, US courts — at least for now — are unlikely to entertain claims that would require them to set or enforce global emissions standards.

What to Watch

The City of Charleston decision rests on a presumption that allowing state-law climate claims would create a “chaotic web of conflicting legal obligations.” The decision reflects deep concerns about the practical, legal, and policy consequences of permitting states and municipalities to use their own laws to address the global problem of climate change.

The real-world implications of this decision on the broader regulatory landscape are significant:

• Prepare for Continued Litigation: In the United States, climate litigation will persist, with plaintiffs testing new theories and forums. In many cases, parties will need to address complex questions of preemption, justiciability, and causation. Future cases will be unlikely to succeed if courts follow Charleston and similar cases. 
  
  The Charleston decision focuses on the concept of legal fragmentation, i.e., the idea that different jurisdictions could impose different standards on the energy industry. If every state (or even every municipality) could impose its own tort, consumer protection, or regulatory standards on the production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels, energy companies would face a patchwork of potentially inconsistent and overlapping legal obligations. For example, one state might impose liability for failing to warn about climate risks, while another might require different disclosures or even prohibit certain warnings as misleading. The result would be that companies could not predict with confidence what conduct is lawful or how to structure their operations to minimize liability.
  
  And the court suggests that fragmentation would not be limited to the energy sector. “[V]irtually anyone could be a plaintiff—and a defendant—in what would effectively amount to a perpetual series of lawsuits that reset after every storm.” Airlines, automakers, power companies, agricultural businesses, and even municipalities themselves could be swept into litigation, each subject to the unique laws and policy preferences of every jurisdiction where they operate, imposing compliance challenges.

• Focus on Federal and International Advocacy: The court’s emphasis on federal preemption means that, in its view, parties should prioritize engagement with federal regulatory processes and international negotiations, rather than relying on the “quick fix” posed by state-law litigation. Allowing state-law climate claims would create regulatory confusion, undermine federal and international policy, burden courts and litigants, and ultimately hinder effective responses to climate change. The decision reflects the reality that greenhouse gas emissions do not respect state or international borders, and the harms of climate change are felt globally. In the Charleston court’s view, any solution is by definition not local or state issues; instead, they are national or international Indeed, given the potential for international harms, the court cited the risk of a “chaotic confrontation” between sovereign states,” (either US states or other countries) where one state’s policy choices are imposed on others, leading to legal and political conflict.

• Monitor Divergent Jurisdictions: While many courts have followed the reasoning in Charleston, certain courts in other jurisdictions (e.g., Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota) have allowed some state-law climate claims to proceed. (For more, see here.) This said, the court’s reasoning suggests that state and local governments retain important roles in climate adaptation, resilience planning, and advocacy for stronger federal action. (The case here may illustrate a similar situation.)

For litigants, the uncertainty and expense of defending against multiple, overlapping lawsuits in different jurisdictions remains daunting. Companies could face liability for the same conduct in multiple states, with no clear way to reconcile conflicting judgments or standards. In that circumstance, parties on all sides of the litigation would likely end up prioritizing procedural maneuvering over substantive resolution of climate issues.

Members of the firm’s Environmental, Energy & Cleantech, and Environmental, Social & Governance teams regularly monitor regulatory and court decisions affecting the energy space.