South Carolina judge tosses climate suit

A South Carolina court has dismissed with prejudice a climate lawsuit similar to the cases Michigan officials say they plan to bring against major oil companies.

Michigan Attorney Dana Nessel threatened to sue oil companies in May 2024, Michigan Capitol Confidential reported. Nessel’s effort, which includes recruiting out-of-state law firms to litigate against energy producers, has brought Michigan into conflict with the U.S. Department of Justice and is similar to other global warming lawsuits that have been filed, so far without success, by other states. The Aug. 6 ruling in the Palmetto State follows unfavorable rulings against state attorneys general by judges in New Jersey and Maryland.

South Carolina Climate Ruling by mcclallen

Under the theory advanced in the South Carolina lawsuit, “virtually anyone could be a plaintiff — and a defendant — in what would effectively amount to a perpetual series of lawsuits that reset after every storm,” Circuit Judge Roger Young wrote.

By this reasoning, residents could sue any company, not just energy companies, Young noted.

“If these lawsuits were successful, municipalities, companies, and individuals across the country could bring suits for injuries after every weather event,” the judge wrote. “The list of potential plaintiffs is unbounded. Moreover, under Plaintiff’s theory, there is no reason to limit the universe of potential defendants to energy companies alone.”

Young said that the complaint doesn’t belong in state court.

“The U.S. Constitution makes certain matters the exclusive domain of federal law for good reason,” Young wrote. “If all fifty states, let alone the tens of thousands of political subdivisions therein, were permitted to apply their own laws to such federal issues as interstate and international emissions, the result would be conflicting state standards that would be impossible for energy companies to navigate — what the U.S. Supreme Court called a ‘chaotic confrontation between sovereign states.’”

Nessel’s office hasn’t responded to a request for comment. 

These lawsuits are based on an unsupported theory that global warming is causing an increase in extreme weather events, and they amount to a war against reliable energy, Joshua Antonini, an energy and environmental policy research analyst for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, told CapCon in an email.

“This is an attempt by progressives to continue their war against reliable energy, not through the ballot box but through frivolous lawsuits,” Antonini said. “The substance of the suit is built on a pop culture version of climate science, not actual fact. For multiple forms of extreme weather, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it has ‘low confidence’ that there even is a trend, let alone that manmade climate change is causing such a trend, or that somehow American energy companies can be singled out for fault.”