US Judge Deals Devastating Blow to Climate Lawfare Campaign against Oil and Gas Producers

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

The long-running climate lawfare campaign targeting “big oil” suffered another major blow in South Carolina on Wednesday when State Judge Roger Young dismissed a case brought by the city of Charleston against Chevron, Colonial Pipeline, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and an array of additional oil companies whose deep pockets city officials and their trial lawyers had hoped to plumb.

Judge Young granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without wasting time and money on a trial, ruling that the city had no authority to pursue the specious claims of ill-defined harm caused by worldwide carbon emissions from the use of oil and gas. “Plaintiff does not (and cannot) predicate its claims under South Carolina law on Defendants’ allegedly wrongful conduct only in South Carolina, since this State accounts for a negligible share of the global emissions that Plaintiff alleges have caused its damages,” Young wrote in his decision, which adds to a growing list of similar rulings made by judges in at least nine other cases around the country.

The reason why these rulings are all so similar is that claims from the grasping local policymakers who’ve signed up for this cynical money grab are equally similar, and that the longstanding principles of law are so unambiguously clear. Regardless of how cleverly the trial lawyers attempt to mask their claims in various unrelated state laws or local ordinances, the practical impact of a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be to enable every state and local government to write and enforce their own regulations. In the end, companies trying to conduct nationwide business would be faced with trying to comply with a patchwork of hundreds of competing sets of regulations, making it almost impossible to continue to do business in the United States.

This inevitable reality is why the federal government has always asserted primacy to regulate interstate commerce in general and to specifically regulate emissions and air quality under the Clean Air Act. Judge Young addressed that longstanding principle of law in his decision, writing, “The U.S. Constitution makes certain matters the exclusive domain of federal law for good reason. 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.’”

Chevron’s lead counsel, Ted Boutrous, Jr. of Gibson-Dunn, applauded Judge Young’s decision, saying, “This ruling adds to a ‘growing chorus’ of climate lawsuit dismissals by federal and state courts…Judge Young rejected Plaintiffs’ ‘artful’ attempts to frame its claims as solely about consumer deception, holding that ‘Plaintiff cannot avoid that its claims turn on emissions.’ ‘These lawsuits promise to create a chaotic web of conflicting legal obligations for Defendants as each state . . . imposes its own de facto regulations on the worldwide production, marketing, transport, and sale of fossil fuels. Neither federal nor South Carolina law permits such a result.’”

So, will this latest ruling against the plaintiffs end this cynical lawfare? Unfortunately for the defendants, the answer is no. The Supreme Court had a chance to do that in the case brought by the City and County of Honolulu in January, and took a pass after the Biden-era Justice Department weighed in on the side of the trial lawyers. Given that it is safe to assume the Trump DOJ won’t be taking a similar posture, we can always hope for the highest court to do the right thing whenever another case rises to that level.

Until then, the baseless wasting of time and money will continue. It brings to mind an old saying about “the beatings will continue until morale improves.”

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #DavidBlackmon ClimateLawfareCampaign

Up Next

Agencies ordered to delete worker COVID vaccine records

Don't Miss

Trump Calls For DC Homeless To Be Moved ‘FAR From The Capital’

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Oil markets stumble as sanctions, tariffs and oversupply collide

Business / 4 hours ago

Toronto taxpayers should demand better of city’s homelessness services

International / 11 hours ago

Trump speaks with Zelenskyy, European leaders ahead of Putin meeting in Alaska

Daily Caller

Mexico Hands Over Notorious Cartel Leaders To Trump Admin

Published on August 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Hopkins

The Trump administration extradited dozens of fugitives from Mexico as the White House tightens a noose around criminal syndicates south of the border.

Federal law enforcement took custody of 26 individuals, many of them leaders of dangerous drug cartels and human smuggling organizations that the Trump administration has deemed to be foreign terrorist organizations, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Tuesday announcement came in the aftermath of President Donald Trump reportedly authorizing the use of military force against drug cartels.

Among those handed over to U.S. authorities were top leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generation and Los Zetas cartels, according to the DOJ. Nearly every individual faces up to life in prison on various charges ranging from hostage-taking, drug-trafficking, kidnapping, human smuggling and a slate of other crimes.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“Today is the latest example of the Trump administration’s historic efforts to dismantle cartels and foreign terrorist organizations,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a public statement. “These 26 men have all played a role in bringing violence and drugs to American shores — under this Department of Justice, they will face severe consequences for their crimes against this country.”

“We are grateful to Mexico’s National Security team for their collaboration in this matter,” Bondi continued.

Those extradited to the U.S. included Martin Zazueta Perez and Kevin Gil Acosta, leaders of a powerful faction of the Sinaloa Cartel that have led hired gunmen armed with grenade launchers and assault rifles in attacks against Mexican military officials, according to the DOJ. Both men were involved in prolific fentanyl trafficking into the U.S.

Also taken into American custody were Leobardo Garcia Corrales, a close friend of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman who has allegedly trafficked fentanyl into the U.S. in exchange for AK-47s, grenades and submachine guns, and Luis Raul Castro Valenzuela, a Sinaloa Cartel gangbanger accused of kidnapping and holding hostage an American citizen, according to the DOJ.

Collectively, the 26 individuals have imported “tonnage quantities” of cocaine, meth, fentanyl heroin and other illicit drugs through the Mexico border, according to the Trump administration.

Just days before the extradition, Trump reportedly authorized the use of military strikes against Mexican drug cartels, a move that would mark a monumental escalation in the White House’s war against criminal syndicates. Immediately upon re-entering office, the president officially designated a number of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, allowing U.S. authorization to freeze their financial assets, prohibit their entry into the country and the prosecution of members for supporting terrorism.

While the Mexican government has shown a willingness to help take on drug cartels and illegal immigration, their government appears adamantly opposed to U.S. military strikes against criminal syndicates within their territory, with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Friday “absolutely” ruling out the possibility of U.S. military operations on Mexican land.

The Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration across the southern border has wielded unprecedented success, with Border Patrol agents releasing zero migrants into the interior of the country in July, marking the third consecutive month of zero releases.

Daily Caller

Working Class Ditching Dem Party In Droves As Some Say It’s ‘Fighting For Everybody Else’ Besides Americans

Published on August 12, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Ireland Owens

Many working-class Americans who previously voted Democratic are expressing skepticism about the party being able to regain their vote in future elections, the New York Times (NYT) reported Tuesday.

Several working-class interviewees told the NYT that they struggled with their decisions to vote for former President Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. The report comes as Democrats attempt to persuade voters to embrace their ideas ahead of the upcoming midterms and 2028 White House election.

“I think I’m done with the Democrats,” Desmond Smith, a black man who voted for Biden in 2020, told the NYT. Smith told the outlet that he voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

When asked how the Democratic Party could win his vote back, Smith told the NYT that Democrats need to “fight for Americans instead of fighting for everybody else.”

“It seemed like they [Democrats] were more concerned with [diversity, equity and inclusion] DEI and LGBTQ issues and really just things that didn’t pertain to me or concern me at all,” Kendall Wood, a truck driver from Virginia, told the NYT. Wood told the NYT that he voted for Trump in 2024 after backing Biden in 2020.

“They weren’t concerned with, really, kitchen-table issues,” he added.

“Maybe talk about real-world problems,” Maya Garcia, a restaurant server from California, told the NYT. Garcia told the outlet she voted for Biden in the 2020 presidential election but did not vote in the 2024 presidential election.

Garcia said that Democrats talk “a lot about us emotionally, but what are we going to do financially?” She added, “I understand that you want, you know, equal rights and things like that. But I feel like we need to talk more about the economics.”

Kyle Bielski, of Arizona, told the NYT that he connected with Trump’s “America First” messaging in the 2024 election cycle. Still, Bielski told the outlet that he does not feel like the president is meeting expectations on his “America First” promises.

“We’re getting into more stuff abroad and not really focusing on economics here,” he told the NYT. “It doesn’t seem like he’s holding true to anything that he’s promised.”

Meanwhile, John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster, told the NYT that Democrats “are doing nothing to move their own numbers because they don’t have an economic message.”

“They [Democrats] think that this is about Trump’s numbers getting worse,” Anzalone added. “They need to worry about their numbers.”

Some Democrats have recently called for their party to stay away from left-wing messaging and return to more center-left politics following the GOP’s victories in 2024. Additionally, various polls have shown that the Democratic Party has lost popularity with voters in 2025.

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Ken Martin said in February that Americans now see the GOP as the “party of the working class” while the Democratic Party is viewed as the “party of the elites.”