The intersection of King and Huger streets is one of Charleston's many flood-prone spots. A climate lawsuit filed by the city in 2020 says oil companies are to blame. Motions to dismiss the case will be heard May 29 and 30.

A climate lawsuit against two dozen oil companies filed by the city of Charleston could end with a whimper if the 24 defendants convince a judge to throw out the case.

State Circuit Court Judge Roger Young will hear multiple motions to dismiss the case in the Court of Common Pleas in Charleston on May 29 and 30. Hearings on both days are scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m.

The suit, filed during John Tecklenburg's mayoral administration, alleges the oil companies knew for more than half a century their products would harm the environment while they purposefully spread misinformation about the correlation between burning fossil fuels and climate change.

For a city situated at the edge of the ocean the implications of the lawsuit are significant, Charleston officials said when the case was filed five years ago. The complaint asks a state judge to find the oil companies at fault and for jurors to determine financial damages .

The oil companies named as defendants — including industry giants ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP — argue the case should be dismissed.

Charleston’s lawsuit initially was filed in state court in 2020. The gas and oil defendants then acted to move the case to federal court, saying the global nature of climate change was outside of state court purview. U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled in July 2023 in favor of the city’s request to keep the case in state court. Many considered this an early win for the city of Charleston, The Post and Courier previously reported .

Although the case has been remanded to state court, the question of whether the suit belongs there remains. At the crux of the oil companies' motions to dismiss is the question of whether state laws can apply to an issue as widespread as climate change, said Donald Kochan, professor of law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School.

Emissions are a “national and global issue” and already regulated by federal legislation — the Clean Air Act — which prevents state law from applying, Kochan said.

The oil companies assert in a joint memo that Charleston's complaint seeks to use “one state’s law to regulate the nationwide — and even worldwide — marketing and distribution of lawful products.”

Corey Riday-White, managing attorney at the Center for Climate Integrity, sees the motions to dismiss as an attempt to rewrite the original complaint.

“These complaints are not about ending the fossil fuel industry or regulating who can buy gasoline,” Riday-White said. “They're about honesty and accountability.”

The oil companies have filed motions to dismiss on other grounds, as well, and out-of-state oil companies argue they haven't done enough business in Charleston for the city's claims to apply.

Chevron believes the lawsuit targets the company’s right to free speech by calling the company's messaging deceptive and greenwashing.

Riday-White compared climate lawsuits to those against the tobacco and opioid industries.

“You have these massive corporations that sell the product that they know will cause harm, but they don't tell the public about that harm once that harm comes to bear," he said. "They have to be held accountable. They have to help clean it up."

A key difference Kochan saw between the climate and tobacco litigation is that the tobacco products causing harm to those who used them were traceable; greenhouse gas emissions are not, Kochan said.

The oil companies assert the climate suit is about emissions, according to court documents. The city maintains the suit is about these companies' behavior, including deceptive messages and a failure to warn the public of the environmental harm fossil fuel products cause.

The oil companies argue they didn’t have a responsibility to warn the public about the harms of burning fossil fuels because that harm was generally known already.

City officials and Mayor William Cogswell will monitor the hearings, city spokesperson Deja Knight McMillan said in a written statement.

“The mayor looks forward to reviewing the court’s findings and will consider the best course of action for Charleston once more information is available,” she said.

States, cities and tribal governments throughout the country have filed similar climate lawsuits. Charleston’s complaint remains the only one filed in the South.

Decisions from these cases are likely to inform each other, Riday-White said.

Courts in Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania have granted motions to dismiss climate suits, either partially or completely.

Courts in Minnesota, Vermont, Connecticut and Washington, D.C., have denied similar motions to dismiss. State Supreme Courts in Colorado, Hawaii and Massachusetts have denied motions to dismiss, moving cases in these states closer to trial.

“It's a really big step getting past that motion to dismiss,” Riday-White said. “But it is really just the first major step.”

Whatever the outcome of the hearings on May 29 and 30, appeals are anticipated. Charleston’s climate lawsuit is years away from trial — if it ever gets there.

Toby Cox is on the Rising Waters team. Reach her at or at (843) 670-8651. You can also reach her securely on Signal at (843) 670-8651.