DeSmog

Facebook-f X-twitter
Subscribe
Donate
Donate

DeSmog

Donate
Search
Search

Andrew Grossman

Andrew M. Grossman

Credentials

Background

Andrew Grossman is a partner at the law firm BakerHostetler, where he practices appellate and constitutional litigation. He is also a Visiting Legal Fellow at The Buckeye Institute, a right-wing advocacy group that operates as part of the State Policy Network. He also served as a former visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative group.4“Andrew M. Grossman: Visiting Legal Fellow,” The Buckeye Institute. Archived June 7, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/rNa9V 5“Andrew M. Grossman: Former Visiting Fellow,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived June 7, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/J561k

In March 2016, Grossman and fellow BakerHostetler attorney David B. Rivkin Jr. announced they were launching the Free Speech in Science Project with the stated purpose of defending victims of a “Climate Inquisition.”6David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman. “Punishing Climate-Change Skeptics,” The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

“The project will fund legal advice and defense to those who need it, while executing an offense to turn the tables on abusive officials. Scientists, policy organizations and others should not have to fear that they will be the next victims of the Climate Inquisition—that they may face punishment and personal ruin for engaging in research and advocating their views,” Grossman and Rivkin wrote in the Wall Street Journal.7David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman. “Punishing Climate-Change Skeptics,” The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

Large oil companies like ExxonMobil have been using free speech arguments to fight against a range of climate-related lawsuits. When the fossil-fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) found itself the target of a subpoena to uncover details on its climate change efforts, Grossman and his colleague David B. Rivkin Jr. defended it on free speech grounds.8“CEI Fights Subpoena to Silence Debate on Climate Change,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, April 7, 2016. Archived June 12, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/f0uf5 9David Hasemyer. “Exxon Ramps Up Free Speech Argument in Fighting Climate Fraud Investigations,” Inside Climate News, January 13, 2018. Archived June 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/bVfb2

Grossman is a graduate of George Mason University’s School of Law. GMU has received more funding from Koch Family Foundations that any other university. Documents released in 2018 revealed that the Charles Koch Foundation had say in the hiring and firing of professors in exchange for donations.10“Koch Pollution on Campus,” Greenpeace. Accessed June 12, 2018. 11Associated Press. “Koch’s university donations bought influence in hiring, firing faculty,” New York Post, May 1, 2018. Archived June 12, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/daSKv

BakerHostetler Tobacco History

On their website, under International Arbitration and Litigation services, BakerHostetler advertises that they represented “several tobacco company clients in the first year of a multi-year dispute allocating payments among 22 states under the Tobacco Litigation Master Settlement Agreement of 1998.”12“International Arbitration and Litigation,” BakerHostetler. Archived June 11, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/QqzPD

A search of the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents library at the University of San Francisco reveals a history of the legal firm providing services to the tobacco industry.

Judith E. Chamberlain Et Al. Vs. The American Tobacco Company, Inc. Et al

BakerHostetler was one of several law firms representing the tobacco company Phillip Morris (PM) against allegations of a conspiracy to manipulate the level of nicotine in cigarettes to keep smokers addicted, or get new smokers addicted. The complaint alleged fraud and deceit, including conspiracy to suppress research about the harmful effects of smoking.13“Chamberlain v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 788 (N.D. Ohio 1999),” Justia Law.

PM’s counsel at Baker & Hostetler was Diane Chapman. In June 1996, Philip Morris reached out to Chapman to explore “expanding Baker & Hostetler’s role in Philip Morris litigation” as a “regional counsel” law firm.14“RE: PHILIP MORRIS REGIONAL COUNSEL,” Phillip Morris, June 25, 1996. Retrieved from Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library. Bates No. 2074212146-2074212148.

BakerHostetler appears on a number of Philip Morris budget documents and invoices. For example, a 1995 budget document lists approximate “non-tobacco & health fees” at $109,020.15“FIRMS BILLING OVER 0,000 IN 1995,” Retrieved from Truth Tobacco Industry Documents archive. Bates No. 2075821563-2075821572.

FDA Regulation

Representatives from Baker & Hostetler have written their opposition to the FDA’s proposed regulation of tobacco.

Charles F Freiburger Tobacco

Another document outlines a guide on “how to write effective letters to your legislators” to oppose tobacco regulation. While the author is not listed, Baker & Hostetler appears in the header.16“How To Write Effective Letters To Your Legislators,” Baker Hostetler, November 1995. Retrieved from Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library. Bates No. 2070293507.

National Smokers Alliance (NSA)

Guy Vander Jagt, an attorney with Baker & Hostetler, was listed as a National Smokers Alliance (NSA) advisor board member.17“NSA BOARD MEMBER BIOS,” June 1994. Retrieved from Truth Tobacco Industry Documents library. Bates no. 2045915018-2045915030.

Baker & Hostetler also appears to have provided services for the National Smokers Alliance. For example, NSA forwarded a bumper sticker to the law form for legal review. Baker & Hostetler replied, “The NSA may distribute this bumper sticker now or during the next year’s campaign season without conflicting with the [Federal Campaign] Act.”18“Re: Bumper Sticker,” Baker & Hostetler. Retrieved from Truth Tobacco Industry Documents library. Bates no. 2044337318-2044337319.

NSA Bumper Sticker

Stance on Climate Change

March 23, 2016

Writing at The Wall Street Journal, Grossman and David Rivkin, Jr. suggested that there is a “Climate Inquisition” targeting climate change deniers:19David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman. “Punishing Climate-Change Skeptics,” The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

“As the scientific case for a climate-change catastrophe wanes, proponents of big-ticket climate policies are increasingly focused on punishing dissent from an asserted “consensus” view that the only way to address global warming is to restructure society—how it harnesses and uses energy. That we might muddle through a couple degrees’ of global warming over decades or even centuries, without any major disruption, is the new heresy and must be suppressed.”

Key Quotes

April 17, 2018

In an American Enterprise Institute panel discussing lawsuits against ExxonMobil and other oil companies, Grossman declared:20“What did they know, and when did they know it? The municipal climate litigation, the fossil-fuel industry, and the municipal bond market,” AEI, April 17, 2018. Archived June 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/wvcBP

“People have been calling climate change and the fossil fuel industry the next tobacco for about the past 23 years. It hasn’t happened yet, but maybe these cases will be the ones that finally bring that across the finish line. It seems unlikely to me. Then, if you want to talk about exaggeration and conspiracy mongering, you only really need to look at several of these complaints.”

December 22, 2016

In a statement at CEI, Grossman spoke of a ruling in a defamation case filed by climate scientist Michael Mann against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other groups:21“CEI Responds to Court Ruling in Mann Case,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, December 22, 2016. Archived June 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/Hd3kN

“We are confident that Dr. Mann’s remaining claims will ultimately fail, because they attempt to shut down speech and debate that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Today’s decision only draws out Dr. Mann’s years-long effort to wage “lawfare” against his opponents instead of engaging in public debate,” Grossman said.

September 25, 2016

“The Clean Power Plan implicates every evil associated with unconstitutional commandeering. It dragoons states into administering federal law, irrespective of their citizens’ views. It destroys accountability, by directing the brunt of public disapproval for increased electricity costs and lost jobs onto state officials, when the federal government deserves the blame. And it subverts the horizontal separation of powers, by allowing the executive branch to act where Congress has refused to legislate,” Grossman and David Rivkin, Jr. wrote at The Wall Street Journal.22“‘Clean Power’ Plays and the Last Stand for Federalism,” The Wall Street Journal, September 25, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/M0yOU

Key Deeds

2012 – Ongoing

The National Review, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and article authors Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg were involved in a defamation lawsuit initiated by climate scientist Michael Mann. Mann’s initial complaint outlined the allegedly defamatory statements. A July 13, 2012 article written by Rand Simberg, titled “The Other Scandal In Unhappy Valley,” appeared on the CEI’s publication, OpenMarket.org. It included the following statement:23Mann Vs. National Review, Inc. et al. Case No. 0008263-12. Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division. October 22, 2012.

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”24Mann Vs. National Review, Inc. et al. Case No. 0008263-12. Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division. October 22, 2012.

Simberg’s article also suggested that the so-called “climategate” emails, which was found by multiple independent investigations to contain “no basis to any of the allegations of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data,” were evidence that Mann had engaged in “data manipulation:”25Mann Vs. National Review, Inc. et al. Case No. 0008263-12. Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division. October 22, 2012.

“Mann has become the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber. No university whitewash investigation will change that simple reality.”26Mann Vs. National Review, Inc. et al. Case No. 0008263-12. Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division. October 22, 2012.

The second aspect of the complaint involved an article titled “Football and Hockey” that appeared in National Review Online in which Mark Steyn commented on Simberg’s prior piece and reproduced the Sandusky quote. Steyn conceded: “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point.”27Mark Steyn. “Football and Hockey,” National Review, July 15, 2012. Archived June 11, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/rZ7XS

Andrew M. Grossman with David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Mark I. Bailen were have been involved in stages of the case. They defended CEI and National Review against Mann on a First Amendment basis, and moved for dismissal under the Anti-SLAPP Act.28CAB-8263-12. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. December 22, 2016.

Reuters reported in 2014 that while anti-SLAPP dismissal motions had been dismissed by two Superior Court judges, one who found that the criticism of Mann “demonstrates something more and different than honest or even brutally honest commentary.” However, the court decided to take a case to determine whether the defendants had the right to appeal the dismissal of the anti-SLAPP motion.29Alison Frankel. “Climate scientist faces broad array of foes in suit vs. National Review,” Reuters, August 13, 2014. Archived June 11, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/SUXYe

“Defendants continue to play their malicious game of defaming Dr. Mann, aptly described by the Superior Court as a ‘witch hunt,’ and have succeeded in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars through their pledge to continue their harassment of this distinguished scientist,” Mann’s lawyers said.30Alison Frankel. “Climate scientist faces broad array of foes in suit vs. National Review,” Reuters, August 13, 2014. Archived June 11, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/SUXYe

The court ruled against CEI on December 22, 2016. The defendants then petitioned for a rehearing in 2017, arguing that the court’s decision violated First Amendment law. View related documents via CEI below.31Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg v. Michael E. Mann. CAB-8263. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. December 22, 2016.

April 17, 2018

Grossman spoke alongside the Cato Institute’s Patrick J. Michaels in a American Enterprise Institute (AEI) panel to discuss the state and municipal lawsuits against ExxonMobil. The panel was titled “What did they know, and when did they know it?” and was moderated by AEI economist Benjamin Zycher. Grossman defended ExxonMobil, describing the charges as “ludicrous”:32“What did they know, and when did they know it? The municipal climate litigation, the fossil-fuel industry, and the municipal bond market,” AEI, April 17, 2018. Archived June 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/wvcBP

“In my view, none of these things is prosecutable fraud, except for in circumstances that I’ve never heard. There’s this idea that there is, like, some guy at ExxonMobil that 30 years ago—he knew. Nobody else knew, but he knew. It’s ludicrous on the face of it,” Grossman said. “None of these things as you have described it, as I understand it, can be fraud, should be fraud. I mean, this is how we debate and discuss things. And, again, at least for the moment, you get to do that.”33“What did they know, and when did they know it? The municipal climate litigation, the fossil-fuel industry, and the municipal bond market,” AEI, April 17, 2018. Archived June 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/wvcBP

The American Enterprise Institute has received over $3 million from ExxonMobil over the years. In addition to at least $100,000 from ExxonMobil, The Cato Institute has received at least $17,658,050 from Koch Family foundations.

August 8, 2016

The Federalist Society held a podcast during a Federalist Society conference call discussing the ExxonMobil climate change investigations. The podcast featured Andrew Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP and an Adjunct Scholar and counsel at The Cato Institute.34“The Climate Change Investigations – Fair Regulation of Markets or Executive Overreach that Chills Free Speech? – Podcast,” The Federalist Society, August 8, 2016. Archived April 30, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/vpwlB

As noted in the podcast, Grossman has “been involved in both defending targets of the subpoenas and in challenging the lawfulness of their issuance.”35“The Climate Change Investigations – Fair Regulation of Markets or Executive Overreach that Chills Free Speech? – Podcast,” The Federalist Society, August 8, 2016. Archived April 30, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/vpwlB

April 19, 2016

The Federalist Society released a video of Andrew Grossman, a partner at the law frim BakerHostetler and counsel for the fossil-fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute explaining “Free Speech and Climate Change”:36“Free Speech and Climate Change,” The Federalist Society, April 19, 2016. Archived May 1, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/DK9Y0

April 2016

Grossman and his Free Speech in Science Project defended the Competitive Enterprise Institute against a subpoena from U.S. Virginia Islands Attorney General Claude Walker that requested documents and donor information relating to CEI’s denial of climate change. The subpoena was part of several seeking information on whether the oil industry knew about climate change while misleading investors and the general public about the real risks.37(Press Release). “Virgin Islands AG subpoenas records from climate skeptic nonprofit,” Newswire, April 8, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/2ucYL

March 23, 2016

Grossman co-wrote an article at The Wall Street Journal titled “Punishing Climate-Change Skeptics,” comparing modern climate change deniers to Galileo. “The Climate Inquisition began with Michael Mann’s 2012 lawsuit against critics of his ‘hockey stick’ research—a holy text to climate alarmists,” Grossman and David B. Rivkin, Jr. wrote.38David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman. “Punishing Climate-Change Skeptics,” The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

Grossman and Rivkin then announced their establishment of the Free Speech in Science Project with the stated goal “to defend the kind of open inquiry and debate that are central to scientific advancement and understanding.”39David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman. “Punishing Climate-Change Skeptics,” The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who they described as the “Grand Inquisitor” in the piece, responded in an article at HuffPost.40Sheldon Whitehouse. “More Nonsense from the Fossil Fuel Industry,” HuffPost, March 28, 2016. Archived June 8, 2018. Archvie.is URL: https://archive.li/cEt2F

December 2015

Grossman testified before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on “Pitfalls of Unilateral Negotiations at the Paris Climate Change Conference.” The committee was chaired by Representative Lamar Smith, who was described by The Guardian as a “climate scientist witch hunter” after serving more subpoenas during his time as chair than in the committee’s entire 54-year history.41“Andrew M. Grossman testifies in the hearing ‘Pitfalls of Unilateral Negotiations at the Paris Climate Change Conference’ in front of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,” Cato Institute, December 1, 2015. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. 42John Abraham. “Lamar Smith, climate scientist witch hunter,”The Guardian, November 11, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/DIn0W 43John Abraham. “Lamar Smith, climate scientist witch hunter,”The Guardian, November 11, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/DIn0W

Notable witnesses included Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the fossil-fuel-funded Manhattan Institute, and the “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg.

According to Smith, regulations under the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan to be presented at the UN Paris Climate Change Conference would “cost billions of dollars, cause financial hardship for American families, and diminish the competitiveness of American employers, all with no significant benefit to climate change.”44“Andrew M. Grossman testifies in the hearing ‘Pitfalls of Unilateral Negotiations at the Paris Climate Change Conference’ in front of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,” Cato Institute, December 1, 2015. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

Andrew Grossman’s testimony starts at approximately 25:50. He notes that the committee requested him to “assess the legal aspects of the climate agreement.”45“Andrew M. Grossman testifies in the hearing ‘Pitfalls of Unilateral Negotiations at the Paris Climate Change Conference’ in front of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,” Cato Institute, December 1, 2015. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

“My conclusion is that as a legal matter, Paris is a farce,” Grossman said. “The point of the Paris negotiations is to create new obligations in international law. […]

I therefore agree with the CRS’s conclusion that any court weighing the claim that the President may adopt and implement quantitative emissions reductions, would most likely deem the executive’s action an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional power. This is why Paris is a farce.”46“Andrew M. Grossman testifies in the hearing ‘Pitfalls of Unilateral Negotiations at the Paris Climate Change Conference’ in front of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,” Cato Institute, December 1, 2015. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

Affiliations

Social Media

Publications

According to his profile at BakerHostetler, “Andrew has been a frequent legal commentator on radio and television, having appeared on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR and its affiliates, CBN, and elsewhere. His legal commentary has also appeared in dozens of magazines and newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and many others.”55“Andrew M. Grossman,” BakerHostetler. Archived June 7, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/175ht

Some sample publications below:

Other Resources

Resources

Related Profiles

Free Speech in Science Project
Free Speech in Science Project Background Attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman established the Free Speech in Science Project in 2016 to “to defend the kind of...
Andrew Wheeler
Andrew Wheeler Credentials MBA, George Mason University (1999).“Andrew Wheeler,” LinkedIn. Accessed April 12, 2018. Archived pdf on file at DeSmog. JD, Washington University in...
Andrew Coyne
Andrew Coyne Profile Image Patar knight, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons Credentials Coyne is a graduate of the University of Toronto a...
Andrew Montford
Andrew W. Montford Credentials Bsc, Chemistry, St Andrews University.Bruce Robbins. “Bishop Hill: the blogger putting climate science to test,” The Courier, April 4, 2010. Reg...

DeSmog

Clearing the PR Pollution

Sections

Databases

Topics

DeSmog

Follow

Newsletter

Facebook-f X-twitter Youtube Instagram

DeSmog

Clearing the PR Pollution

Follow

Newsletter

Facebook-f Twitter Youtube Instagram

Website by SeriousOtters

Donate

Facebook-f Twitter