The Natural Resources Defense Council says recent investigations by West Virginia’s attorney general and a U.S. House committee are aimed at intimidating environmental nonprofits and curbing their advocacy. The account was written by Mitchell Bernard, NRDC’s chief counsel, and published by CleanTechnica.
West Virginia’s attorney general opened an investigation into NRDC and several other groups on the stated basis of possible consumer fraud. NRDC says the inquiry questioned its statements that fossil fuel use contributes to climate change. The attorney general issued a subpoena seeking communications spanning the previous 10 years, including internal strategy materials, regulatory comments, exchanges with partners and scientists, donor discussions and draft publications.
NRDC, working with Democracy Forward, prepared a federal lawsuit arguing that the subpoena infringed its First Amendment rights. The group says it told the attorney general on October 22 that it planned to file suit; the subpoena was withdrawn a little more than two hours later.
The House Natural Resources Committee separately sent letters in September to NRDC and 18 other environmental nonprofits, seeking documents about their litigation practices and the use of statutory provisions that can allow successful parties to recover legal fees. NRDC says fees from the cases identified in the committee’s letter amounted to 0.112 percent of its operating budget over the past five fiscal years.
Bernard argues that the organization’s court actions enforce laws and that Congress intended fee-shifting provisions to support such cases when courts consider an award appropriate. He also says the committee has not sought to compel NRDC to respond to its document request. Other House committees have made inquiries involving environmental nonprofits, though NRDC says it is not currently a named target in those investigations.
NRDC says it will continue its climate advocacy and litigation. It characterizes the government inquiries as attempts to punish protected speech, while the cited actions are described in the article as investigations into potential consumer fraud and nonprofit litigation practices.
Sources: CleanTechnica.