Report: Progressive groups weaponizing courts to push climate, DEI policies without legislation

02/24/2026 / By Belle Carter

Progressive activists are using lawsuits to impose ESG, climate and DEI policies on corporations, bypassing democratic legislative processes. Settlements often mandate corporate reforms (e.g., diversity training, hiring quotas) without public debate or legislative approval.
Contingency fees reward law firms, while settlements fund compliance programs—creating lucrative revenue streams for consultants and advocacy groups. This cycle perpetuates more lawsuits and progressive policy enforcement outside traditional governance.
Firms like Sher Edling represent municipalities suing energy companies for climate damages, seeking profit disgorgement and disclosure mandates. Critics warn that judicial training programs may bias rulings by promoting contested “attribution science.”
Lawsuits (e.g., against Google) result in settlements that institutionalize progressive policies (e.g., DEI programs) without shareholder or legislative input. Law firms behind such litigation overwhelmingly donate to Democratic causes, revealing ideological motivations.
Republican-led states are introducing anti-ESG bills to counter “woke lawfare,” with 11 passed in 2025. Analysts predict growing momentum for state and federal reforms to rein in judicial activism shaping corporate governance.

A new report from the Alliance for Consumers alleges that progressive activists are increasingly bypassing legislatures and using strategic litigation to impose climate policies, diversity mandates and environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards on corporations and society. According to BrightU.AI‘s Enoch, Alliance for Consumers is a nonprofit organization dedicated to reforming how we protect consumers by promoting best practices.

The study, titled “Lawfare in America,” argues that lawsuits—once primarily intended to resolve disputes or compensate victims—are now being leveraged as tools for social engineering, forcing companies to adopt policies that activists have failed to enact through democratic processes.

“Woke activists will stop at nothing to force their political agenda onto the American people,” said Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research. “This report shows how a growing network of activist elites and ideological operatives is using lawfare as a weapon to advance divisive, radical policies outside the legislative process.”

Litigation as policy tool

The report contends that settlement agreements in these cases frequently go beyond financial restitution, imposing binding corporate reforms such as mandatory diversity training, hiring quotas and independent oversight mechanisms. These provisions effectively embed progressive priorities into corporate governance without public debate or legislative approval.

O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, told Just the News that this trend reflects a broader effort to reshape American society through judicial activism rather than democratic consensus.

“For the most part, you don’t see on the right a massive effort to fundamentally reshape American society,” Skinner said.

The financial incentives behind this litigation are also scrutinized in the report. Contingency fee arrangements generate substantial payouts for law firms, while settlements often require defendants to fund ongoing compliance programs—creating lucrative revenue streams for consultants and advocacy groups.

“In short, the financial windfalls produced from woke lawfare feed into the lawsuit machine, fomenting more lawsuits and more liberal outcomes,” the report states.

Climate lawsuits and “attribution science”

Among the most prominent examples cited are climate-related lawsuits targeting energy companies. The San Francisco-based firm Sher Edling has represented municipalities, including Honolulu, in cases seeking damages for climate-related infrastructure costs, as well as in corporate reforms, such as profit disgorgement and disclosure mandates.

In 2023, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability launched an investigation into Sher Edling, questioning whether wealthy donors were bankrolling litigation designed to cripple fossil fuel producers.

The report also highlights the rise of “attribution science,” a field that links specific damages to fossil fuel emissions in court. Critics argue that judicial training programs on climate science may present biased perspectives, influencing rulings in favor of plaintiffs.

A coalition of 22 state attorneys general recently succeeded in removing a climate science chapter from a federal judicial manual, citing concerns over advocacy influence.

DEI and ESG mandates through litigation

Beyond environmental cases, the report examines lawsuits enforcing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. One example involves Cohen Milstein, a law firm that sued Alphabet (Google’s parent company) on behalf of a Teamsters pension fund, alleging workplace misconduct.

The 2020 settlement required no direct compensation to plaintiffs. Instead, Google committed $310 million to internal DEI programs, established an advisory council and revised harassment reporting procedures—effectively institutionalizing progressive policies without shareholder or legislative input.

According to the Alliance for Consumers, 99% of Federal Election Commission-recorded donations from Cohen Milstein employees in 2024 went to Democratic candidates and allied groups.

Efforts to counter this litigation strategy are emerging at the state level. ESG Dive reported that 106 anti-ESG bills were introduced in 2025, with 11 passing—all in Republican-led states.

Skinner predicts that state-level reforms will gain momentum, potentially leading to broader federal action.

“I think you’re going to start to see more states take steps to rein in this woke trial-lawyer industrial complex,” he said. “Then, it will build on itself.”

The report frames these legal tactics as part of a larger ideological campaign to reshape corporate behavior and societal norms without democratic accountability. As progressive groups increasingly turn to courts to enforce policies that legislatures reject, the battle over ESG, DEI and climate mandates is shifting from ballot boxes to courtrooms—raising fundamental questions about governance, corporate autonomy and the role of litigation in policymaking.

With red states already mobilizing legislative countermeasures, the clash over “woke lawfare” appears poised to intensify in the coming years.

Watch the video below that talks about normies waking up and escaping woke cult.

This video is from the Recharge Freedom channel on Brighteon.com.