If you thought the fight over Boulder, Colorado's climate lawsuit was a simple story about farmers and ranchers squaring off against Big Oil, think again.
A new deep dive from The Federalist reveals that several of the "ranchers" backing the case now before the Supreme Court are anything but ordinary agriculturalists. According to the report, a number of them are radical left-wing partisans, and some hold direct ties to the same dark money network that fuels Democratic campaigns and leftist causes nationwide. Conservative Review, covering the same findings, reports that at least one of the plaintiffs has compared the modern Republican Party to the Nazis.
The Case Before the High Court
The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to allow Boulder's climate lawfare to proceed — a legal campaign that seeks to hold energy companies liable for climate change under state law. The case is being watched closely because a ruling in Boulder's favor could open the floodgates to a wave of copycat lawsuits from municipalities and states across the country, effectively letting trial lawyers and activist local governments dictate national energy policy.
For years, supporters have framed these suits as grassroots efforts by "regular people" — farmers, ranchers, and small-town families — harmed by a changing climate and demanding accountability from Big Oil. That framing is now falling apart.
Nazi Comparisons and Partisan Activism
According to Conservative Review's reporting, at least one of the ranchers backing the Supreme Court push has a documented history that includes comparing the GOP to the Nazis — rhetoric that would be disqualifying on its face if it came from a conservative. These aren't people who just happen to ranch; they are political operatives and activists who have spent years fighting conservative causes and Republican candidates.
The Federalist's investigation further found that several of the plaintiffs hold ties to Democrats' dark money network, the same loosely connected web of nonprofit groups and donor vehicles that has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into left-wing causes, including environmental litigation and anti-energy campaigns.
It is important to note that the reporting characterizes these ties as connections and associations — not necessarily direct funding of the ranchers themselves. The outlets did not disclose a specific dollar figure flowing to any individual plaintiff, and those details have not been made public. What is clear is the pattern: the same people pushing climate lawsuits against American energy producers are, in many cases, plugged into the very political machine that has spent years attacking them.
A Familiar Playbook
This is a story conservatives have seen before. When left-wing causes need credibility, they find — or create — sympathetic "everyman" faces. When the lawsuits need funding, they turn to dark money groups that don't have to disclose their donors. When the media covers the fight, the coverage focuses on the sympathetic faces, not the money trail behind them.
Boulder's lawsuit is one battle in a wider war: the effort to use state courts and state law to bypass Congress, bypass the democratic process, and impose the Left's green agenda on the country through litigation rather than legislation. If the Supreme Court gives this lawsuit the green light, every red state's energy industry becomes a target for trial lawyers backed by out-of-state dark money.
The energy industry supports millions of American jobs, directly and indirectly. It powers homes, factories, and small businesses. When it is weakened by frivolous litigation, the people who pay the price are working families and small business owners — the very people these "ranchers" claim to represent.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will decide whether Boulder's case can move forward. The Federalist's reporting has already changed the story: this is not a grassroots David-versus-Goliath tale. It is a coordinated, well-funded legal campaign with a partisan pedigree — and the public has a right to know who is really behind it.
Americans should be asking a simple question: if these plaintiffs are so convincingly "ordinary," why did it take an investigative report to surface their political histories and their ties to Democratic dark money? The answer, increasingly, is that the climate lawsuit industry depends on the public not looking too closely.
This report draws on investigations published by The Federalist and Conservative Review. Neither outlet's reporting has been independently verified by Next News Network, and specific funding amounts connected to individual plaintiffs have not been publicly disclosed.
Our Take
There is nothing grassroots about this lawsuit, and there never was. The Federalist's reporting confirms what every energy-state family already suspected: the "ranchers" suing over climate are political activists, some of whom have likened Republicans to Nazis, operating in a legal campaign bankrolled by the same dark money machine that funds the Left's entire infrastructure.
This is the Left's favorite trick. Find a sympathetic face. Put them in front of the cameras. Hide the money behind a nonprofit that doesn't have to disclose donors. Then sue until the courts give you what you could never win at the ballot box. They can't pass their energy agenda through Congress, so they're trying to impose it through state lawsuits — gambling that the Supreme Court will let them. Every American who pays an electric bill should be watching this case. If Boulder wins, your state is next. The only question is whether the Court will see the dark money for what it is — or let the Left turn the bench into a legislature.
