During a marathon hearing this week in Charleston, South Carolina Circuit Judge Roger Young expressed deep skepticism about the city’s climate lawsuit against the energy industry, signaling a potential forthcoming setback for the nationally coordinated campaign to push these cases through state courts.
Charleston filed its lawsuit in 2020, aiming to pin the costs of climate change on oil and natural gas companies. The suit, represented by Sher Edling LLP, is part of a broader litigation push bankrolled by anti-fossil fuel interests.
But the legal momentum has turned. A growing number of judges across the country are rejecting these cases, and Charleston may soon join their ranks.
SC Judge Skeptical of Charleston’s Arguments
Judge Young repeatedly challenged Charleston’s legal theory and the feasibility of proving liability in a courtroom:
“If you have 50 different states, you’re going to have 50 different negotiators at the table, it kind of boggles the mind.”
He pressed Charleston’s attorneys on how they plan to hold dozens of companies responsible for a global issue involving countless actors and variables, showing skepticism of the use of activist-funded “source attribution” research to pin the effects of global climate change on any one company:
“Walk me through what this case looks like in the form of a trial. How do you prove your claims with these 30-40 defendants if climate change is an international problem and it’s got a lot of things that go into causing it? And a lot of players and actors around the world. How do you show approximate costs? How do you show your damages?”
Singling out one industry in a complex global supply chain could create a slippery slope, Judge Young suggested, pressing Sher Edling attorneys on whether they’d sue automotive companies next.
He was also wary of the city’s apparent rush to sue, questioning whether Charleston had exhausted practical, solution-oriented measures before leaping to sue oil companies:
“What can they have done? What can they do? Other than say, well, open your pocket book”
National Politics in the Courtroom
The hearing also brought a clear message from the state’s top legal office. Assistant Deputy Solicitor General Ben McGrey made a guest appearance to reinforce the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office’s calls for the case to be dismissed:
“The state agrees entirely with the defense’s position here that their motion to dismiss should be granted entirely on the merits and with prejudice.”
At one point, Judge Young also repeatedly questioned attorneys on the impact of President Trump’s executive order directing the Department of Justice to intervene against states using lawsuits and superfund bills to affect climate policy. According to Bloomberg Law, Young described the order as:
“… some evidence that it is, in fact, a national priority. … And it needs to be consistent, because the president at least says this could affect national security.”
Judge Young acknowledged that he would not comment on the merits of Trump’s executive order, but called it a “piece of evidence” nonetheless.
A Possible Voluntary Dismissal?
While the decision to sue was made by the city’s prior mayor, the current mayor, Republican William Cogswell, has not dropped the case despite pressure from local and state voices to do so.
Prior to the arguments, Cogswell’s office told the New York Times that, “The mayor looks forward to reviewing the court’s findings and will consider the best course of action for Charleston once more information is available” – indicating that the city may follow in Puerto Rico’s footsteps, who voluntarily dismissed its own case earlier this month.
Bottom Line: Charleston’s lawsuit is part of a broader, coordinated campaign – funded by anti- fossil fuel interests – to regulate global emissions. But judges across the country are seeing through the strategy. Judge Young’s pointed questions suggest South Carolina may be next in line to reject this misguided legal effort.
