City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co.

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.

The City of Charleston filed an action in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas against fossil fuel companies asserting that they are responsible for “devastating adverse” climate change impacts on Charleston and its residents. The alleged impacts included flooding, inundation, erosion, and beach loss due to sea level rise; “more frequent, longer-lasting and more severe” extreme weather events; and resulting social, economic, and other consequences. The conduct alleged to be a substantial factor in causing the impacts includes failure to warn of threats posed by fossil fuel products, wrongful promotion of fossil fuels and concealment of known hazards, “public deception campaigns designed to obscure the connection” between the defendants’ products and climate change, and failure to pursue less hazardous alternatives. The City asserted claims of public and private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass, as well as violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The City sought compensatory damages, treble damages under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and costs of suit.