NFIB Small Business Legal Center
The litigation arm of the NFIB, funded via Koch donor funds (DonorsTrust, Donors Capital) and the Bradley Foundation.
§ 1 · Background & fossil-fuel ties
The organization grew out of the National Federation of Independent Business in the year 2000 as a way for the organization to do legal work on behalf of small businesses. But the nonprofit has taken money from big business over the years. Funding has come from the Koch-linked Claude R. Lamb Foundation, as well as Donors Capital Fund and DonorsTrust, according to IRS records.
The nonprofit has also accepted money from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, an industrial-era fortune which has spent decades financing organizations challenging climate science and opposing environmental regulation.
§ 2 · Record of fronting
Within months of the Small Business Legal Center’s launch, it brought its first major lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, challenging changes to permitting under the Clean Water Act. Its argument was that the Corps had failed to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires agencies to consider impacts on small businesses and less burdensome alternatives.
The nonprofit also signed onto an amicus brief filed by the Washington Legal Foundation, which sided with industry in the Suncor v. Boulder case. The groups argued that Boulder’s lawsuit is really an attempt to regulate global greenhouse-gas emissions through state tort law, something they say Colorado has no constitutional authority to do.
§ 3 · The cover story, debunked
“The City and County of Boulder, Colorado wants to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and “tax” the energy industry by obtaining a multi-billion-dollar verdict under Colorado tort law against the targeted companies for contributing to global climate change.
That’s not actually the legal argument the city and county in Boulder are making. WLF is trying to make a clever assertion that is a distraction from the legal issue at hand. The core claims are for damages under state tort or consumer-protection law, based on alleged deception, nuisance, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs in Suncor v. Boulder seek damages for harms caused by the companies’ alleged role in exacerbating climate change; and that oil companies misled consumers about the climate impacts of their products. Those are not the same thing as a state emissions cap, fuel tax, or regulatory standard. WLF’s framing collapses the distinction and overstates what the suits are asking the courts to do.
Boulder’s legal theory in Suncor effectively treats “the fossil-fuel industry itself” as illegal and could eventually make fossil-fuel production and distribution unprofitable.
That claim overstates what Boulder is actually asking for. Boulder is not seeking to outlaw fossil fuels, shut down oil production, or impose emissions limits. It seeks damages and remediation for alleged local harms tied to the companies’ production, promotion and sale of fossil fuels. The brief actually says it does not seek to enjoin oil-and-gas operations.