South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson last week urged a court to throw out Charleston’s climate lawsuit against energy producers – marking a unique instance of a state attorney general calling out the lack of merits of a municipality’s case.

In a amicus brief filed on September 4, Wilson cited the recent dismissal of Baltimore’s lawsuit and noted that the lawsuit raises “serious constitutional concerns” that “disrupt ‘basic interests of federalism’ and impair state sovereignty.” He went on to argue:

“As the courts in both City of New York and City Council of Baltimore also recognized, Congress’ enactment of the Clean Air Act does not change the fact that our federal structure and commitment to the equality of States requires federal law to apply to claims over global climate change and preclude the application of state law in such cases.” (emphasis added)

As EID Climate has highlighted, Attorney General Wilson is also one of the 19 Republican attorneys general asking the Supreme Court for permission to sue five Democratic-led states for pursuing climate lawsuits whose impacts, they argue, would cross borders and raise prices for consumers everywhere.

Notably, the attorney general’s brief puts Charleston Mayor William Cogswell, a fellow Republican, in a tricky spot. Since inheriting the city’s lawsuit when he took over as mayor in 2024, Cogswell has yet to speak decisively about the lawsuit and instead just shown tacit support.

But it should be asked: Does Cogswell support the Charleston suit, making him a member of a small group of Republican officials to support and preside over a climate lawsuit? (Another Republican to date – Bucks County Councilmember DiGirolamo – quickly withdrew support for his county’s lawsuit after swift backlash). Or does he agree with recent court rulings and Attorney General Wilson that climate lawsuits are “an affront to the dignity of all states” and “violate the Constitution”?

For its part, the City filed a counter move with a letter submitted by Vic Sher of Sher Edling – the law firm spearheading the climate liability campaign across the country – citing a Connecticut ruling tossing a motion to dismiss on the same issue. These contrary opinions reinforce how important it is for the Supreme Court to weigh in on climate lawsuits to prevent a patchwork of legal decisions varying by state and jurisdiction to dictate national energy policy.

Bottom Line: As the losses keep piling up for the nationally-coordinated and billionaire-funded climate litigation campaign, so too does the momentum for similar suits to be tossed – as well as the imperative need for SCOTUS to decisively rule on the litigation’s merits and the principles of state sovereignty that continue to be elevated.