Save Our States
Federalism / elections group — Bradley, Searle, Scaife.
§ 1 · Background & fossil-fuel ties
Save Our States presents itself as a nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting the Electoral College and preserving the role of states in presidential elections. Founded in 2009, the organization advocates for the Electoral College, opposes the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and promotes a constitutional vision emphasizing state sovereignty and federalism. Nothing in its public mission suggests expertise in climate science, energy policy, or environmental law. Yet in 2026, Save Our States entered one of the nation's most consequential climate accountability cases, filing a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief supporting ExxonMobil, Suncor Energy, and other fossil fuel companies in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County.
The Supreme Court brief identifies Save Our States as a project of People for Opportunity, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that does not publicly disclose its donors. Tax filings show that People for Opportunity has received substantial financial support from The Concord Fund, a principal grantmaking organization within the conservative legal network led by longtime Federalist Society strategist Leonard Leo. The Concord Fund reported grants of $450,000 in 2023 and $590,000 in 2024 to People for Opportunity. Those grants are especially significant given that People for Opportunity reported approximately $1.08 million in total revenue in its 2023 IRS filing, meaning Concord funding represented a substantial share of the organization's financial support.
The Bradley Foundation provides another link to the Leonard Leo network. Its 2023 tax filings report a $200,000 grant to the Judicial Education Project — an earlier name for the 85 Fund — for a "Save Our States initiative." While available records do not conclusively establish that the grant supported the Save Our States project that later filed the Suncor brief, the connection is notable. A Mother Jones investigation found that Bradley provided $75.6 million to 62 organizations filing conservative-side amicus briefs and reported that foundation staff emailed with Leonard Leo about routing tax-exempt funding through one of his organizations to support Supreme Court amicus projects.
§ 2 · Record of fronting
Save Our States has no public record of conducting climate, environmental, or energy policy research. Its stated mission is protecting the Electoral College and promoting federalism. Yet in 2026, the organization filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to side with ExxonMobil, Suncor Energy, and other fossil fuel companies in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County—one of the nation's most significant climate deception lawsuits.
Rather than addressing allegations that fossil fuel companies deceived the public for decades about the climate risks of their products, Save Our States reframed the case as an attack on state sovereignty. The brief argues that Colorado is improperly attempting to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions through state courts and asks the Supreme Court to block the lawsuit before it can proceed.
§ 3 · The cover story, debunked
Colorado's lawsuit is an attempt to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions and national energy policy through state courts.
Colorado's lawsuit does not seek to regulate national energy policy or prohibit fossil fuel production. Instead, Boulder County and other plaintiffs argue that ExxonMobil, Suncor, and other fossil fuel companies violated longstanding state consumer protection and tort laws by allegedly deceiving the public about the climate risks of their products. Like lawsuits against the tobacco and opioid industries, the case asks whether companies can be held financially accountable under existing state law for alleged misconduct — not whether a state can set national energy policy.
Allowing Colorado's lawsuit to proceed would violate the sovereignty of other states.
States have long applied their own consumer protection and tort laws to companies alleged to have caused harm within their borders. The Colorado plaintiffs argue they are seeking damages for injuries suffered in Colorado under Colorado law — not attempting to regulate conduct in other states. The Supreme Court is being asked to determine where those jurisdictional limits lie.