City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co.

On September 15, 2025, Law360 <a href="https://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/2388127">confirmed</a> that the City of Charleston, South Carolina, had decided not to appeal the August 2025 dismissal of its lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable for the harmful effects of climate change. The deadline to appeal was September 5.

The South Carolina Court of Common Pleas dismissed the City of Charleston’s lawsuit seeking compensation from fossil fuel companies for damages allegedly incurred as a result of the companies’ deceptive marketing of their products, which inflated consumption of fossil fuels and accelerated climate change. First, the court concluded that the structure of the U.S. Constitution precluded the City’s state law claims—which were based on tort law and the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act—because they involved interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. Second, the court held that the Clean Air Act preempted the City’s claims, analogizing to Supreme Court precedent holding that the Clean Water Act precluded application of state law against out-of-state sources. The court further held that the claims should be dismissed as a matter of state law on four grounds: (1) the political question doctrine; (2) the statute of limitations; (3) failure to adequately allege the claims; and (4) lack of personal jurisdiction over certain defendants.

In the climate case brought by the City of Charleston, South Carolina, against fossil fuel companies, the parties submitted a joint response to the court’s request that they set forth their positions on whether President Trump’s Executive Order 14260, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” which directed the Attorney General to take action to stop state and local actions that burden domestic energy, had implications for the City’s case. The City contended that neither the executive order nor the executive branch possessed constitutional authority to dictate how the court should rule. Defendants argued that the executive order confirmed that the court should grant their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

–

–

–

–

–

–