Ten years ago, a subpoena from then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched the Rockefeller-funded legal crusade against America’s energy industry. This week marks a decade since the news broke about the case – but you won’t hear activists bragging about it this week.
That’s probably because their so-called “trial of the century” ended in spectacular defeat. What was supposed to be a game-changing lawsuit instead became the first in a long string of dismissed cases – in a campaign defined by courtroom flops, sketchy funding schemes, and millions in wasted taxpayer dollars.
Now, ten years later, the story is reaching a full circle moment. The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to review a case brought by Colorado municipalities that could determine the fate of this climate lawfare. A ruling could close the chapter on a ten-year campaign that has repeatedly failed from the start.
Ultimately, the campaign’s setbacks are primarily grounded in courts’ recognition of the weak legal theories and unfounded claims, but its lack of success also shines light on how politics and public priorities have shifted over the decade.
Origins of the Billionaire-Funded “Grassroots” Campaign
From the beginning, the climate litigation campaign was anything but grassroots. While activists publicly framed it as a spontaneous push for “climate accountability,” the effort was in fact conceived and financed by a small circle of wealthy donors and foundations – led by the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
In the months leading up to the NYAG’s 2015 subpoena, supposedly “independent” articles published in the LA Times and InsideClimate News alleged that Exxon and other oil companies had secret knowledge of the effects of climate change. These stories became the basis of the “#ExxonKnew” campaign and were cited by the New York Attorney general as justification for his probe.
But what the public didn’t know at the time was that the very outlets producing those stories had done so thanks to funding by Rockefeller foundations – a clear conflict of interest that only surfaced later.
Documents from a 2016 closed-door RFF meeting pulled the curtain back further. Attendees discussed plans to “delegitimize” energy companies and pressure public officials to distance themselves from industry via litigation and public pressure.
The coordination didn’t stop there. Records made public last year, obtained after years of open-records battles, shows that RFF and its allies created the legal playbook used by Schneiderman’s office. In the months leading up to the 2015 subpoena, activists provided memos, research, and a “trove of material” to urging NYAG to pursue a lawsuit – despite internal skepticism from attorneys within the attorney general’s office.
In the end, New York ultimately ran with the activists’ plan wholesale only to see it collapse in court years later, exposing the campaign for what it was: a billionaire-funded political effort dressed up as public-interest litigation.
Scoreboard: 10 Years, 0 Wins
A decade after the first subpoena was issued, the results speak for themselves: dozens of cases filed, not a single victory. The activist-driven litigation campaign – that continues to be funded by the Rockefellers and other deep pocketed, dark money foundations – has become a nationwide losing streak for activists trying to use the courts to advance climate policy (see: Attorney Involved With Boulder Climate Case Admits Suit Is a Backdoor Carbon Tax, as SCOTUS Considers Appeal).
From New York to Puerto Rico, courts have rejected these lawsuits, often issuing blistering opinions that highlight their political motivations and legal overreach:
After ten years, the scoreboard is impossible to ignore: zero wins, mounting costs, and growing public fatigue. The courtroom has proven to be a dead end for activists trying to get, in the words of a Maryland judge, “in the backdoor what it cannot get in the front door.”
Activists Pivot After Legal L’s
After striking out in court, activists have been forced to reinvent their playbook. The focus has shifted to increasingly aggressive legal theories and legislative strategies – each one attempting to achieve through new channels what they failed to do in the courtrooms.
Bottom Line: A decade in, the scoreboard is showing a giant goose egg for proponents of climate litigation against America’s energy industry. Courts have consistently rejected these activist-driven legal theories, while the public grows weary of symbolic, taxpayer-funded crusades.
As the campaign enters its second decade, one question remains: will politicians finally move on from these costly, losing battles, or double down for round two of the battered campaign?
