Massive energy companies are funding both sides of multibillion-dollar climate litigation because the high-dollar law firms conducting their defense also support their legal adversaries. Major litigation using climate activists’ strategy reaches the Supreme Court Monday morning in Suncor v. Boulder.
That case concerns whether climate activists can use anti-Constitution courts as a national superlegislature to decommission the reliable energy that undergirds the U.S. economy. The plaintiffs seek to pillage reliable energy companies by blaming them for alleged global emissions that allegedly damage the far-left city of Boulder, Colorado.
Even climate alarmists admit China is the world’s top source of energy emissions, annually releasing a claimed three times as much as the United States. Climate “science” is notoriously unreliable and politicized.
“Adverse verdicts could extract tens of billions of dollars from the energy sector and effectively impose a national carbon tax on American consumers. Gas prices and utility bills would soar, left-wing activists and green advocates would cheer, and working families would bear the cost,” writes consumer protection lawyer and former Arizona Attorney General O.H. Skinner.
Massive energy firms such as ExxonMobil, Suncor, BP, Conoco Philipps, Philipps 66, and others face similar litigation in numerous cases that will increase if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Boulder. The damages demanded are so large they could end the companies and transform them into another massive money pot fueling even more leftist aggression against private property and limited government.
Yet these same companies are effectively funding their would-be destroyers through the Big Law firms these companies have hired to defend themselves from ruin.
“Consider WilmerHale, Arnold & Porter, and Latham & Watkins — three of the most prestigious law firms in the country,” former Arizona Supreme Court justice Andrew Gould noted recently at National Review Online. “All three are representing major energy companies in climate lawsuits, and all three are closely connected to ELI” — the Environmental Law Institute, a nonprofit that trains judges to rule in favor of climate activist litigation against reliable energy.
AGs: Activism Posing as Neutral Information
The attorneys general of 23 states last year said ELI “lobb[ies] judges in order to make climate change policy through the courts” and asked the Trump administration to stop federal grants to the organization. ELI says its Climate Judiciary Project has trained 2,000 judges since it began in 2018 and rejects claims that its training is partisan. ELI says its Climate Judiciary Project “collaborators” are “known for their impartiality and are at the top of their fields in science and judicial education.”
Gould says “ELI routinely partners with lawyers leading and shaping climate litigation against energy companies.” He says University of California at Los Angeles law professor Ann Carlson served on ELI’s board and has consulted for Sher Edling, a law firm that has engaged in “more than two dozen climate-nuisance lawsuits” and submitted briefing in Suncor v. Boulder. ELI has also featured Michael Burger, a counsel to Sher Edling.
“Education is not ‘neutral,’ ‘objective,’ or ‘reliable’ if it is provided by individuals who are working with one side in active litigation and is designed to sway judges to that party’s side,” the attorneys general wrote.
Gould noted in a call with The Federalist that state judges’ dockets are “heavy,” they often “haven’t practiced in this area” of law, “and they get this training … and they assume it’s just sort of unbiased and straightforward, and it’s not so.”
“Judges are inundated with studies from advocacy groups in terms of policy decisions and rule-making decisions,” he said, and it can be hard to sift through which are reliable, especially given judges’ workloads.
Influencing Judges through ‘Education’
ELI is not the only influence effort posing as education that pushes judges and lawyers to support the legal theories undergirding the ruinous “public nuisance” lawsuits against energy companies. Following extended Federalist reporting on the topic, the Federal Judicial Center and National Academies of Sciences recently retracted a “biased” climate training manual for federal judges with a forward written by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.
Kagan has not recused herself from Suncor yet despite this apparent interest conflict and a recusal from constitutional justice Samuel Alito. Alito apparently recused over false claims he owns stock in the defendant companies.
Judges influenced by the manual Kagan endorsed and climate activist groups like ELI have delivered adverse judgments against the energy companies funding activism against themselves via their law firms. Former Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Mark Recktenwald conducted training for ELI and allowed the Honolulu v. Sunoco case to proceed, threatening tens of billions in losses and extensive discovery costs as it heads toward trial. That case parallels the Boulder litigation and is one of “more than 40 climate change lawsuits against the American energy industry” filed by Democrat-run states and cities, Gould says.
“Should the Supreme Court endorse Boulder’s position that states and localities can pursue these types of state-based claims against Suncor and Exxon, [Skinner] said that such a ruling would open up Pandora’s box for leftists to advance similar lawfare against other industries they disfavor,” reports The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood.
Big Law Backs Anti-Energy Lawfare
The very law firms racking up huge fees for defending these energy companies in dozens of suits also fund organizations like ELI that train judges to rule against the energy companies’ interests, Gould points out. WilmerHale represents ConocoPhillips in the Honolulu v. Sunoco litigation, and according to Gould, WilmerHale is not only an institutional member of ELI, its board chairman is a retired WilmerHale partner, and current WilmerHale partner Peggy Otum sits on ELI’s board.
Arnold and Porter represents BP in the Honolulu v. Sunoco litigation, and “more than 30” similar lawsuits. Gould writes that Arnold and Porter is not only an institutional member of ELI, partners Ethan Shenkman and Stacey Halliday sit on ELI’s board, and former A&P partner Michael Gerrard contributes to ELI trainings from Columbia Law School. A&P also reportedly hosts ELI trainings for its staff.
Latham & Watkins represents Phillips 66 in the Honolulu v. Sunoco litigation and at least four other similar suits. Gould writes that Latham & Watkins is not only an institutional member of ELI, “several Latham partners have served stints on ELI’s board or leadership council, and the firm was central to the formation of ELI’s China working group.”
ELI also reportedly has connections to the Chinese government, raising questions about foreign promotion of litigation adversarial to American interests. These connections have prompted congressional investigations of ELI’s alleged CCP connections.
In a congressional hearing last year, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz released evidence that Communist China funds climate lawfare against U.S. energy companies to cripple U.S. national security and economic freedoms. Evidence presented during the hearing showed these communist-linked lawfare efforts are funded by more than $1 billion in foreign dollars and have already secured half a billion in adverse judgments. Cruz claimed ELI’s Climate Judicial Project was one of several front organizations working this effort from the judicial side.
None of these three law firms responded to repeated requests for comment over more than a week. Neither did BP and ConocoPhillips. A Phillips 66 spokesmen responded, “Phillips 66 is confident in its legal representation and the counsel representing the company in this matter. As this matter involves ongoing litigation, we will not comment further.”
Potential Conflicts of Interest
Gould pointed out that law firms routinely check potential conflicts of interest and reputational risks when representing clients. His article notes these kinds of interest conflicts could violate professional ethics guidelines and “The pertinent question is not just whether firms’ relationships with ELI are technically permissible, but whether those commitments could create divided loyalties or constrain their professional judgment.”
In March 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order cutting off federal contracts with WilmerHale and suspending security clearances for its lawyers for allegedly hiring and promoting staff based on sex and race, “abus[ing] its pro bono practice to…support[] efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, back[] the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and further[] the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote.”
The order also charged the firm with “reward[ing]” former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team with positions at the firm after they conducted “one of the most partisan investigations in American history.” A federal judge struck down the executive order last year, claiming it is unconstitutional for the president to apply anti-partisan, anti-discrimination policies to federal contracts. The administration declined to appeal.
Latham & Watkins and five other large law firms avoided similar action from the Trump administration against their allegedly partisan legal advocacy and alleged racial preferences by agreeing to dedicate $125 million each in pro bono work to non-leftist causes.
Massive Asymmetry In Legal Activism
Large law firms known as “Big Law” provide billions every year in pro bono representation for largely leftist causes. When the Trump administration objected to this corporate bias that massively tilts U.S. courts toward far-left extremism, Reuters reported that leftist activists such as those attempting to prevent the lawful deportation of illegal aliens now could get only a few law firms, instead of dozens, to pursue their legal activism for free. They claimed losing just some of their free $1,000-per-hour lawyers for leftist activism constituted “a tool of coercion.”
This asymmetry means leftists can easily get lawyers to defend just about anyone connected with their causes while non-leftists are often subject to ruinous legal fees to defend against lawfare and harms caused by leftist policies such as keeping Christians from foster care programs, forcing nuns to pay for abortions, forced Covid shots, removing gender-confused children from loving parents, frivolous professional licensing complaints arising from conservative speech, and more.
All paying clients, such as massive energy companies, effectively subsidize law firms’ pro bono work.
