billionaires influence – From a fossil-fuel-friendly court decision in June to a flood of politically aligned friend-of-the-court filings, moneyed networks have steadily expanded their influence at the Supreme Court—using hundreds of amicus briefs per term, increasingly frequent citat
When the Supreme Court handed the fossil fuel industry a favorable turn last June. it didn’t just change the rules of the road for future environmental battles. It also widened a pathway that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Court would rather reserve for certain plaintiffs than for ordinary Americans.
In Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, seven justices made it easier for the industry to sue the government over regulations it dislikes. Jackson. dissenting. wrote: “The Constitution does not distinguish between plaintiffs whose claims are backed by the Chamber of Commerce and those who seek to vindicate their rights.” She added: “But if someone reviewing our case law harbored doubts about that proposition. today’s decision will do little to dissuade them.”.
The case itself arrived quietly, obscured by end-of-term urgency. But the fossil fuel industry, the Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of ideological allies moved quickly and deliberately. They had petitioned the Court to take the case. submitting an unusually high 13 amicus curiae briefs—“friend of the court” filings from parties other than the litigants. Once the Court agreed to hear it. those groups returned again with fresh amicus briefs pushing the justices toward what supporters and critics alike understood as a special privilege for a favored industry.
Jackson’s warning landed in the middle of a larger pattern that academic researchers and watchdogs say has become harder to ignore: the Court is receiving an ever-larger volume of amicus filings. and citing them with increasing frequency. even as the Court has reduced its docket by about 35 percent since 1995.
The numbers that critics point to are blunt. The amount of amicus briefs has risen dramatically in recent years. now routinely topping 800 per term—an eightfold increase since the 1950s and about double the number from 1995. Researchers have found that justices cite amicus briefs more frequently than before. Some plagiarism detection software. according to the analysis described here. has also flagged instances where justices have lifted significant sentences. phrases. and ideas from amicus briefs without citation.
It’s not only the volume that stands out. One detailed review assembled IRS and FEC data for amicus filers in 25 major cases since 2022, including two consolidated cases. After vetting and supplementing that data. the analysis shows that a small number of conservative billionaires and funding networks funneled $1.3 billion to 111 groups that filed 626 amicus briefs in those cases.
The analysis emphasizes what it is—and what it can’t see. Not all of the money funds legal budgets or the briefs themselves, and some groups file far more than others. Still. the sheer amount. spread across a relatively small circle of ultra-wealthy donors. is the centerpiece of the argument: this is a Supreme Court-shaped influence operation. The researchers and watchdog analysis described here also notes that it excludes large quantities filtered through certain dark money vehicles. meaning the figures are a low-range estimate.
Paul Collins. a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who studies the conservative legal movement. put it in stark terms. “This is about really. really wealthy people who have very strong preferences for the direction of American law. and they don’t want to be out in the sunshine. They want to avoid any type of transparency,” he said. He called it “a multifaceted strategy. ” with “the amicus curiae part of it as just a cog in a much larger machine.”.
At the center of that machine, according to years of reporting and the account here, is Leonard Leo.
Leo has been described as having extraordinary access—friends to judges. billionaires. and corporations. with the ability to pick Supreme Court justices and change the law through an extensive. well-financed right-wing network. The story of how that influence was built begins in late 2004. when Federalist Society executive Leonard Leo convened a dinner in Washington. DC. Guests included mortgage mogul Robin Arkley II and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. With President George W. Bush having just won his second term. the goal of the meeting was to ensure Bush could fill high court vacancies. At the restaurant. Leo seated Arkley next to Scalia. a detail presented here as an early glimpse of the access and influence Arkley could gain through funding.
The dinner sparked the creation of two groups that would later spend millions to boost Bush’s nominees and to oppose President Barack Obama: the Judicial Confirmation Network and Judicial Education Project. The account here describes those groups as part of Leo’s broader operation to install “hardcore conservatives” across state and federal courts. with funding traced to America’s wealthiest tycoons. At the Supreme Court. Leo pushed for justices who would shift the law in favor of business and the wealthy. overturn Roe v. Wade, and push conservative Christian values.
Leo is said to have been instrumental in orchestrating the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito in 2005 and 2006. using the Judicial Confirmation Network. which he had helped establish with Arkley’s money. The relationship, this reporting argues, stayed close enough to remain consequential through multiple administrations.
During President Donald Trump’s first term, Trump “brought Leo out from behind the curtain,” the account says, entrusting him with drafting a list from which he would pick Supreme Court justices. That list produced Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
The influence described here is not limited to nominees. The account says Leo also played a key role in shaping the Court’s Republican-appointed majority: the six justices who. in the telling here. ended the right to abortion. gave Trump criminal immunity. destroyed the Voting Rights Act. and allowed nearly two dozen illegal policies to move forward in Trump’s first year back in office.
Other details underscore the cozy web critics describe. Arkley. the account says. hosted Alito at his luxury Alaskan lodge in 2008. and the justice flew there on a private jet provided by hedge fund billionaire and Republican megadonor Paul Singer. Three years earlier, Arkley had escorted Scalia to Alaska for a fishing retreat. Justice Clarence Thomas. it says. used connections to billionaires including Harlan Crow to pay for vacations. his mother’s home. his great-nephew’s tuition.
and films and monuments depicting his greatness. To memorialize the group, Crow commissioned an oil painting showing him sharing cigars with Leo and Thomas. The account also says Leo funneled money to Thomas’ wife. worked closely with the billionaire Koch brothers. and arranged for Scalia and Thomas to attend Koch donor network retreats. At a 2018 Federalist Society event. Thomas cracked himself up when he referred to Leo. who was on stage. as the “No.
3 most powerful person in the world.”.
Supporters of the system contest those implications. But the argument critics make is that the influence doesn’t stop at picking justices or offering perks.
Back in the 1990s. the account says Leo learned that even Republican appointees could fail to follow through on long-term conservative goals after joining the bench. Ending the right to abortion, Justice David Souter’s departure from expected outcomes is presented here as an example. Leo then decided it was pivotal to maintain a “full court press.” The account describes Rev. Rob Schenck. an evangelical activist. as calling that approach a “Ministry of Emboldenment”—surrounding justices with wealthy donors who wanted the Court to overturn Roe. so that. suffused with encouragement. they would not balk.
In that view, the flood of amicus briefs works like a reinforcement loop. When justices consider case arguments, the Court receives an overwhelming sea of agreement—made possible, this account says, by Leo-funded networks that file amici.
In 2020, Leo renamed the two organizations he had begun after that 2004 dinner. One became the Concord Fund, directed by his close ally Carrie Severino, a former Thomas clerk. The other became the 85 Fund.
At the same time. Leo was described as receiving what may have been the largest political donation in American history: $1.6 billion from Barre Seid. a Chicago electronics manufacturer. The money went into a mysterious Leo entity called the Marble Freedom Trust. and its payments to the Concord Fund and 85 Fund were routinely first filtered through other dark money accounts.
Between 2017 and 2024. the account says. these and other Leo-tied funding vehicles dispersed $69 million to 36 groups filing amicus briefs in the cases examined. It also says billionaire Charles Koch’s network sent more than $1 billion to at least 61 amicus filers in those cases over the same period. Once again. the account stresses that donations visible through public filings are only part of the picture and that dark money vehicles are excluded.
Critics argue that the result is not merely legal advocacy, but the appearance of broad grassroots support—manufactured through filings designed to signal momentum.
Lisa Graves, executive director of True North Research, described how the strategy plays out. “You had this concerted effort to get these judges confirmed to reverse the law, to change the law,” she said. “And then you have these groups come in as the chorus. saying. ‘Yeah. change the law.’” She later added. “It’s an echo chamber within the court process where they’re throwing their voice through multiple groups. They are having a disproportionate impact. Given the vast expansion of wealth disparity in recent years. it’s pennies on the dollar for them to have that kind of influence.”.
Leo and Koch aren’t presented as the only power brokers. Billionaires Richard Uihlein and Jeffrey Yass. both major Republican donors. are described as spending nearly $82 million and $26 million respectively through their own funding networks on groups filing amicus briefs in the 25 surveyed cases. The Wisconsin-based Bradley Foundation is described as pouring $75.6 million into 62 groups.
The total described here—$1.3 billion to 111 conservative-side groups filing 626 amicus briefs in the sampled cases—includes approximately $818 million in donations to Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF). with the money coming largely from other Koch-affiliated groups. The account says AFPF filed 10 briefs in the 25 sampled cases. It then notes that roughly half a billion dollars was divided among the other 110 groups. It also states that 35 groups filed six or more briefs and received a total of $136 million.
The account lists conservative Catholic colleges and universities among the largest recipients, including the Catholic University of America and the University of Notre Dame.
In recent years. the Court decisions described as benefiting this coalition include an end to the right to abortion; allowing prayer and religious influence in public schools; permitting businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people; bringing back conversion therapy; and allowing states to ban medical care for transgender minors. For corporations and the rich. the Court is described here as transforming the judiciary into an escape hatch from government oversight—empowering businesses to sue federal agencies and authorizing judges to strike down more regulations. The account also says the Roberts court chipped away at labor unions’ power. helped the Republican Party through doctrines aimed at knocking down Democratic priorities. attacked the electoral power of Democratic voters. blessed extreme partisan and racial gerrymandering. and bailed Trump out of a criminal trial for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Those consequences, critics argue, don’t emerge from nowhere.
The Supreme Court is described here as having loaded the gun. In 2010. justices lifted spending limits on corporations seeking to influence elections as long as they weren’t donating directly to a political party or candidate. The account then ties that shift to the modern era of billion-dollar elections funded by super PACs and “shady nonprofits. ” with Koch and now-trillionaire Elon Musk named as examples. It cites Citizens United v. FEC as leading to unlimited donations to groups claiming to act independently of a candidate or party.
A New York Times figure is invoked in the account: in 2008, political donations from billionaires made up just 0.3 percent of all election contributions; in 2024, it says the figure was 19 percent, surpassing $3 billion.
The account argues that the promises attached to Citizens United did not hold. The justices who signed it are described as resting the new era on two thin reeds: that it would not lead to quid pro quo corruption because the money went to outside groups. not campaigns; and that disclosure would keep corrupting influence at bay.
Transparency. in this telling. has been “fleeting.” The account points to donors funneled through nonprofits hiding identities. leaving governance shaped by unknown spending. It quotes Michael Beckel, who researches political spending for Issue One. “People figured out that you could put money into ostensibly charitable giving vehicles…and your name is never going to be attached to that contribution. ” Beckel said.
It also says the Court has made an about-face on transparency. In 2021’s Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, it says the justices welcomed a plea for donor privacy from AFPF. In that ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts is described as turning donor and membership privacy from a long-held exception to the new default. and it cites Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s criticism that the Court’s ruling would impact the ability of dark-money donors to continue shaping judicial outcomes.
In that 2021 view, the amicus process becomes part of the machinery the Court itself protected. If anonymity is protected in one arena, critics argue, then the same charity vehicles that scrub identities can also sustain the amicus machine.
The account turns then to donor-advised funds. or DAFs—described as money that can be distributed without the donor’s identity being immediately visible. “Donor-advised funds are absolutely black holes of money,” Beckel said. It names explicitly conservative DAFs including DonorsTrust. the National Christian Charitable Foundation. and the Bradley Impact Fund. as well as those administered by major financial institutions including Charles Schwab and Fidelity.
It then reports a number that forms another centerpiece of the case: when the analysis narrowed donations to groups filing at least eight briefs in the 25 cases. it found that between 2017 and 2024 these 23 groups received $180 million from DAFs. The biggest receiver. with $601 million. it says. was the 85 Fund and the Honest Elections Project. describing them as Leo-controlled groups that filed just two briefs but likely cycled money onward through other DAFs.
The account says a half a billion in DAF money went to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and it notes that while it would likely capture donations beyond legal activities, the church did file amicus briefs in five cases sampled.
It lists other examples. including America First Legal Foundation—the Stephen Miller-created group—as receiving $57 million in dark money routed through the Bradley Impact Fund and DonorsTrust with no traceable donations from the major funders named in the account. It also says the Family Policy Alliance filed 10 briefs in the cases and affiliates took in $14 million from DAFs. It then counts conservative Christian groups—Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Thomas More Society. Christian Legal Society. Liberty Counsel. and American Center for Law & Justice—contributing 45 briefs and taking in nearly all their donations from these networks. $30 million tracked through DAFs.
In the account’s view. these funding channels don’t just shape the arguments that reach the justices; they shape the outcomes. It points to a major 2024 decision that the Court made “for the tycoons who sit atop American industry.” In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. it says the justices reversed Chevron deference. the doctrine in which courts deferred to federal agency decisions when statutory text is ambiguous. The account describes the ruling as a 6–3 majority and says it opened the door to regulations that businesses don’t like.
In that case. it says. the Court received 59 amicus briefs urging the end of deference to agencies. and more than half—34—were signed by groups that had benefited from Leo. Koch. Yass. Uihlein. and the Bradley Foundation. It also says the 34 briefs were double the number—17—filed by groups that don’t appear to be directly funded by those networks. The account states the effect was an overwhelming show of support for a major legal change “quietly funded. at least in part” by a small number of superrich who would benefit from their ability to roll back regulation.
The account then links the money-and-brief dynamic to subsequent courtroom victories for industry. Just three days later. it says the justices shredded the statute of limitations for suing to overturn a regulation in Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, enabling challenges to regulations on the books for decades. The groups that filed seven amicus briefs in that case are described as receiving $939 million from the conservative court megafunders.
The account says the next year, the Court took cases again making it easier for corporations to challenge regulations, including the Diamond Alternative Energy fossil fuel case and another case involving a tobacco industry challenge to the FDA.
The same billionaire-backed amicus influence, the account says, also extends into efforts to restrict rights for women and disfavored minorities.
In 2023. it says. the Alliance Defending Freedom represented a web designer who didn’t want to make wedding sites for same-sex couples. ADF. it says. received $105 million from the DAFs tracked between 2017 and 2024 and another $1.7 million in Koch funding. spending years seeking a case to weaken public accommodation laws and allow discrimination until it reached the 6–3 majority outcome in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
In that case, it says, 58 amicus briefs were filed in support of ADF. More than a third of those briefs. it says. came from groups funded by Leo. Koch. Yass. Uihlein. and the Bradley Foundation. and the total amount those funders gave to the groups behind those briefs in the six years leading up to the case was nearly half a billion dollars—jumping to nearly $714 million one year later.
The account asserts that ADF orchestrated the litigation that overturned Roe v. Wade. describing 61 briefs urging the Court to end the constitutional right to abortion. and it says a third were signed by groups that had taken in $23 million in the preceding five years from the conservative funding networks. It then lists other outcomes the conservative legal ecosystem sought. including the end of affirmative action in higher education in 2023. and says groups pushing that result received more than $44 million through 2022.
For the groups that, it says, won the fight to end medical care for transgender minors in 2025, the account says they got over $47.5 million. It also says groups pushing to end the Voting Rights Act this term took in $17.8 million.
Academic work, the account adds, long predicted that amicus briefs could be more than background noise. In 2016. law professors Allison Orr Larsen and Neal Devins published “The Amicus Machine. ” a paper describing coordination by elite lawyers using amicus “wranglers” to find and coordinate groups and “whisperers” to shape arguments. Even at the time, the account says, they found amicus briefs growing in number and influence.
But in the reporting here, the coordination isn’t only legal. It includes foundation outreach.
The account says that in late 2014. a staffer at the Bradley Foundation reached out to Leo—according to hacked emails later leaked—to ask whether there were any tax-exempt groups Bradley could route funds to in “support of two Supreme Court amicus projects.” Leo responded that an amicus brief written by a top lawyer would cost $250. 000 and that the money could be sent to one of his groups. Bradley ended up sending $150,000.
When Collins first heard about an amicus machine. he said. he thought they were “sort of in conspiracy theory land.” “I couldn’t really envision a world where hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent on these lobbying efforts. ” he said. “It just didn’t seem like it would be worth it to me. But then I started to see the evidence.”.
Not everyone disputes the legal legitimacy of amici filings; the account includes a defense from Koch-affiliated groups. It says all but one of the funders declined to comment on their financial backing of groups filing amicus briefs. A spokesperson for Stand Together. a Koch-affiliated group. wrote: “The Supreme Court’s decisions address critical questions.” The spokesperson said it is “a routine and well-established part of our federal legal system” for organizations concerned with those issues to
participate as amici before the Court. The statement added that these briefs are “publicly filed and their arguments available for review by anyone. ” and that Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Stand Together partners join organizations across the ideological spectrum on issues including free speech. separation of powers. protections for the criminally accused. and more. The spokesperson called any suggestion that participation in the amicus process is unique to a particular set of organizations or
limited to advancing views of a specific political party “simply false.”.
The critics’ point, however, is that legality isn’t the same thing as fairness. The story that emerges from these facts is a Supreme Court that sits at the center of an industry of influence: a pipeline where thousands of pages of friend-of-the-court filings arrive. where citations and reused language can be found. and where money—some visible through public filings. much more obscured—can move through networks designed to keep donors away from the spotlight.
Justice Jackson’s dissent in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA reads like a warning about the Constitution’s promise of equal treatment for litigants. But the account here turns that warning into a practical question: if the Court is repeatedly taking cases where powerful interests flood the record with support. what happens to the idea of justice when the loudest voices come with the biggest checks?.
Supreme Court amicus briefs Ketanji Brown Jackson Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA Leonard Leo Koch brothers donor-advised funds Chevron deference Citizens United v. FEC Corner Post Loper Bright Enterprises