Center for Individual Rights
A conservative legal shop bankrolled by Olin, Bradley, Scaife and Leo — surfacing whenever Big Oil is in court.
§ 1 · Background & fossil-fuel ties
The Center For Individual Rights (CIR) emerged at the end of the 1980s with the belief that conservative public interest organizations were not active enough. CIR was formed with the mission to bring constitutional lawsuits in areas of race and gender, religious liberty, and federal authority, but it has since broadened its work in the public policy and research.
Over the years, CIR has run on money from funds connected to pro-fossil fuel businessmen the Kochs and the Mellon-Scaife oil fortune, as well as the conservative legal activist Leonard Leo. During one period, nearly half of the group’s budget came from three of America’s richest industrial dynasties: Olin, Bradley and Scaife. Olin made money from chemicals and ammunition, Mellon-Scaife from oil and banking, and Bradley from manufacturing.
CIR, like most nonprofits, doesn’t disclose their funders. But according to IRS filings from other foundations, CIR continues to take in money from fossil fuel interests this decade. IRS filings show the Center for Individual Rights received approximately $925,000 from National Philanthropic Trust between 2018 and 2024, which in turn received nearly half a billion dollars from Suncor billionaire investor Paul Singer. The Sarah Scaife Foundation has given CIR $785,000 since 2020. The 85 Fund, which is an organization linked to Leonard Leo, has also contributed roughly $350,000. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation has given about $435,000, while Koch-linked donor funds DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund have also contributed funding. In fact, former vice chair of Donors Trust, a former trustee of the John Olin Foundation, and a former fellow at the Manhattan Institute--James Piereson--is currently emeritus trustee at CIR. This highlights the revolving-door aspect of the energy industry. Separately, they present a façade of independence when opining on legal cases and policy, but are all just working on the side of oligarchy and fossil fuel interests.
§ 2 · Record of fronting
CIR is a legal cog of the greater fossil fuel wheelhouse, with a well-documented history of appearing when large companies end up in court and siding with big business. For example, CIR filed a lawsuit on behalf of states against the state of New York over its greenhouse gas program aimed at curbing emissions. In a press release, CIR criticized New York’s “radical green agenda,” something it omitted saying in its lawsuit filed with the court. The organization chose hyperbole in the media because it knew it wouldn’t fly in court.
In 2016, CIR supported the Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute in resisting the consequences of a climate-investigation subpoena. The Virgin Islands attorney general subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute for roughly a decade of records concerning its climate-change work as part of an investigation connected to ExxonMobil. After the attorney general withdrew the subpoena, CEI sought its legal fees, and CIR filed an amicus brief supporting CEI’s request for fees.
CIR filed an amicus brief in Suncor v. Boulder that was similar to all the other industry-aligned fossil fuel briefs. CIR said that “Boulder, Colorado, wants to set climate-change policy for the United States of America,” in agreement with Suncor and ExxonMobil defendants.
§ 3 · The cover story, debunked
“Any fossil fuel company cannot avoid liability without shutting down operations in other states where operation is lawful and often desired.”
CIR’s brief in Boulder claims that liability can be avoided only by shutting down lawful operations also assumes that paying damages for proven tortious conduct is equivalent to shutting down fossil fuel production. But those aren’t the only options. Fossil Fuel defendants can still operate and still own up to what they are liable for under the law.
CIR repeatedly asserts that state climate measures effectively regulate people with “no meaningful connection” to the regulating state. For example, CIR complains that New York’s reporting rule imposes “unreasonable searches” on Iowa producers.
CIR ignores the nation’s interconnected markets: producers who sell fuel into New York already operate under NY law because they do business there. By framing routine interstate regulation as unconstitutional, CIR’s briefs misrepresent settled legal standards and re-label standard compliance costs as “searches.”
CIR paints environmental lawsuits as a “crusade against speech” and due process, such as in the Exxon case involving CEI.
CIR’s public statements often simplify or skew facts by conflating regulation with censorship to promote an anti-regulatory agenda.