In Short

• South Carolina court dismisses Charleston’s climate lawsuit against major energy companies.
• Judge says federal law and Clean Air Act preempt state climate claims.
• Court warns of conflicting legal standards if states pursue climate litigation.

A South Carolina trial court dismissed a climate change lawsuit brought by the City of Charleston against major energy companies.

Charleston alleged the companies produced and sold fossil fuels and ran a decades-long campaign to mislead the public about climate risks, which allegedly increased demand and worsened environmental harm. The court’s ruling ended a case that had moved between state and federal courts for years.

The court found that state law is not the right tool to address global climate harms. It said such claims are preempted by federal authority and the Clean Air Act (CAA), which provides a comprehensive federal framework for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. According to the court, emissions that cross state or national borders are a “uniquely federal” matter requiring a uniform approach, not separate rules in each state.

Read More: Swiss Council Pauses Climate Disclosure Revision

The court also ruled that Charleston’s lawsuit involved political questions that judges should not decide, such as the appropriate level of greenhouse gas regulation. It emphasised that courts lack the scientific, economic, and technical expertise to resolve complex issues like the causal link between specific emissions and climate impacts, or how to balance environmental protection with economic development.

On state law grounds, the court said South Carolina does not recognise nuisance or trespass claims for the lawful sale of consumer products, nor does it impose a duty to warn about widely known risks such as those from fossil fuel use. Some claims were also time-barred, and the court lacked personal jurisdiction over some out-of-state defendants.

This decision aligns with a “growing chorus” of US courts rejecting similar climate lawsuits. The court warned that letting each state impose its own rules through lawsuits would create a “chaotic web of conflicting legal obligations”, making it hard for companies to know what is lawful. It contrasted sharply with international developments, including the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion suggesting states have obligations to address transboundary climate harms.

Also Read: Philippines SEC Proposes New ESG Disclosure Standards for Firms

In a broader context, the ruling underscores federal primacy in climate regulation and signals that local or state lawsuits are unlikely to succeed in tackling global emissions. The court’s reasoning also reflects concern about legal fragmentation, where different states could impose conflicting standards on industries, leading to uncertainty and higher litigation costs.

Ends/

Are you looking for sustainability experts to guide your business? Explore our ESG Marketplace, featuring over 750 providers offering a wide choice of sustainable advisory services.

Follow our Regulator News for regular news and views.

Check out our latest ESG Event updates

Source: National Law Review