A South Carolina judge has dismissed Charleston’s climate lawsuit, delivering a decisive setback to the climate litigation campaign. [emphasis, links added]
Via a ruling on Wednesday, Judge Roger Young dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Charleston cannot refile the claims, dealing a substantial blow to law firm Sher Edling and the Rockefeller-backed climate litigation campaign.
This ruling follows a growing trend of similar dismissals in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, reinforcing the principle that climate policy is a national and global issue, not something individual states or cities can reshape using state law:
“… the Court concludes that, although Plaintiff’s claims purport to be about deception, they are premised on, and seek redress for, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.”
A Slippery Slope
One of Judge Young’s most striking points was a clear warning about the “boundless” nature of the liability Charleston’s claims could create.
If allowed to proceed, the city’s theory would open the floodgates for nearly limitless litigation, not just against energy producers, but a wide range of industries, including airlines, automakers, and agriculture:
“Under Plaintiff’s theory, any emitters of or contributors to greenhouse gas emissions — such as airlines, automotive manufacturers, power companies, and agricultural companies—could be liable for contributing to global climate change… … As with the list of plaintiffs, the list of potential defendants thus appears boundless.” (emphasis added)
Similarly, Judge Young emphasized that allowing such lawsuits would create a precedent where every weather event would potentially trigger legal action:
“Already, scores of states, counties, and municipalities have sued a hodgepodge of oil-and-gas companies for the alleged weather-related effects of climate change.
If these lawsuits were successful, municipalities, companies, and individuals across the country could bring suits for injuries after every weather event.”
Time-Barred and Fundamentally Flawed
Even Charleston’s claim under South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act did not survive – barred by the state’s three-year statute of limitations.
Judge Young noted that public awareness of climate change and its connection to fossil fuel use has existed for decades, undercutting any claim of recent discovery:
“Plaintiff’s Complaint is time-barred under South Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations because Plaintiff has long been on notice of the potential dangers of climate change and its connection to fossil-fuel use.”
The ruling also referenced constitutional limits and recent federal actions opposing these types of suits, specifically referencing President Trump’s April Executive Order targeting anti-energy lawfare.
Notably, Judge Young flatly rejected comparisons to tobacco and opioid litigation, stating Charleston’s claims fundamentally differ because the alleged harm depends on cumulative, global emissions, not direct, localized actions:
“A plaintiff smoking tobacco in South Carolina causes direct adverse health effects to that plaintiff in South Carolina. The City’s claims, by contrast, depend on interstate and international emissions allegedly causing global climate change, ultimately resulting in alleged in-state injuries caused by, for example, the weather. Because any alleged injury under Plaintiff’s claims necessarily relies on the cumulative effect of interstate and international emissions from global consumers, the claims are readily distinguishable from these other mass-tort cases and are uniquely precluded and preempted by federal law.”
BOTTOM LINE: This ruling sends a clear message: the courtroom is not the place to set national climate policy. As more judges reject these unfounded claims, the climate litigation campaign is losing both momentum and credibility.
Read more at EID Climate
