Charleston’s Climate Lawsuit Is a Dead-End for South Carolina

This article is an opinion piece written by Michael Burris, CEO of the South Carolina Policy Council.

Later this month, a Charleston court will hear the case about whether to dismiss a climate lawsuit that never should have been filed.

As an 8th generation Charlestonian, I love everything about our great city and feel a duty to protect it. There is no doubt that mother nature has shown her teeth through beach erosion, flooding, and multiple other natural occurrences that have provided a challenge to one of the most beautiful places on earth. I strongly believe that we should find innovative ways to lessen the impact of these issues so that future generations can enjoy the stunning natural environment that Charleston and the low country have to offer.

Energy is a key part of that effort. South Carolinians are already moving toward cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient options like nuclear and liquefied natural gas. That’s the free market at work—and we should continue to champion competition and innovation in the energy sector.

This lawsuit does the opposite. It doesn’t offer real solutions, it only aims to disrupt.

Circuit Judge Roger Young Sr. will hear arguments starting on May 29 on whether to dismiss the City of Charleston’s climate lawsuit––a high-profile case that seeks to hold more than a dozen energy producers financially responsible for the purported effects of global climate change.

But despite its local venue, the case is not a South Carolina-led initiative. It’s the latest in a national campaign orchestrated by San Francisco-based trial lawyers at Sher Edling to extract massive settlements under the guise of “climate accountability.”

In reality, these lawsuits—more than two dozen and counting—are an attempt to bypass the federal government, destabilize energy markets, and create a dangerous precedent for policymaking through litigation. Fortunately, courts across the country are increasingly rejecting this strategy.

Judges in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Baltimore, and Annapolis have already dismissed similar Sher Edling-driven cases, often using strong language to rebuke the legal theory behind them. In dismissing New Jersey’s case, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd held that, “Despite the artful pleading by the Plaintiffs in this case, this court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint, even under the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries.” These rulings consistently warn that using state tort law to govern global emissions is a clear overreach—one that invites legal chaos, undermines federal law, and disrupts the constitutional balance of powers.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson agrees. In an amicus brief supporting dismissal of the Charleston case, he warned that the lawsuit “raises serious constitutional concerns that stem from the very structure of our nation.” By attempting to regulate

interstate and international emissions through a local court, Charleston is effectively projecting its policy preferences onto the rest of the country. As Wilson wrote, “Our federal structure and commitment to the equality of states requires federal law to apply to claims over global climate change.”

The U.S. Department of Justice is now echoing that view. In early May, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suits against Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Vermont, arguing that their climate-related legal actions interfere with national energy policy and trade—citing President Trump’s April 8 executive order directing the DOJ to block state and local measures that burden U.S. energy production. The Charleston case is part of the same trend—and it carries the same legal defects.

In fact, Judge Young specifically asked the parties to weigh in on how the executive order affects the case.

The energy companies responded that the order “underscores what was already clear: Plaintiff’s claims are precluded and preempted by the U.S. Constitution and federal law and should be dismissed.” They also pointed out that attorneys for Charleston have never disputed that the lawsuit seeks damages for global emissions—an issue clearly beyond the scope South Carolina’s state laws.

Charleston’s lawyers argue that the executive order should have no bearing on judicial review. But that misses the core issue. This isn’t about executive authority—it’s about whether a single city can use the local laws and courts to impose liability for a global phenomenon that crosses borders, economies and decades of legal precedent. The U.S. Constitution says no.

This lawsuit comes at a moment when courts, the DOJ, and attorneys general across the country are increasingly signaling that climate policy belongs in the hands of federally elected lawmakers, not trial attorneys trying to convert policy disputes into courtroom payouts and impose political preferences that can’t pass Congress. Judge Young should follow the lead of his peers across the country and dismiss this lawsuit.

South Carolina is right to care about climate resilience, but suing the companies that provide the energy we rely on every day—from powering our ports and schools to heating our homes and offices—won’t protect our coastline or reduce emissions. It will only produce more litigation, more confusion and more wasted resources.

The May 29 hearing is a chance to reset the conversation. With clear precedent, compelling arguments, and national momentum for dismissal, the court should bring this case to a close—and allow Charleston to continue to pursue real solutions.