{"id":28453,"date":"2026-03-04T08:38:31","date_gmt":"2026-03-04T13:38:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=28453"},"modified":"2026-03-04T09:08:38","modified_gmt":"2026-03-04T14:08:38","slug":"ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/","title":{"rendered":"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

\"\"<\/a>Last week, Texas v. BlackRock<\/em><\/a> (E.D. Tex.), the first antitrust case challenging climate collaborations by financial institutions, reached an initial resolution. Texas Attorney General (\u201cAG\u201d) Ken Paxton announced<\/a> that one of three institutional-investor defendants, Vanguard, had settled. As part of the settlement, Vanguard pledged not to \u201cdirect\u201d its portfolio companies\u2019 business strategies, threaten withdrawal of its holdings unless portfolio companies \u201cagree to act\u2026in some manner,\u201d nominate portfolio directors, or promote shareholder proposals. AG Paxton boasted of having achieved \u201cone of the most significant enforcement actions ever taken against coordinated ESG-driven market manipulation.\u201d Yet these settlement provisions largely duck the question of whether<\/a> Vanguard\u2019s climate-alliance participation presented meaningful grounds for claiming antitrust harm. On its own, Vanguard\u2019s settlement does little to clarify how ESG or sustainability goals may bring liability for businesses.<\/p>\n

More broadly, however, this settlement provides a useful moment to step back and assess the impact of state-level initiatives targeting environmental, social, and governance (\u201cESG\u201d) considerations in asset and corporate management. State legislation seeking to thwart ESG business and investment practices has largely failed in court, as plaintiffs have successfully advanced constitutional challenges. Yet copycat legislation continues to advance in multiple statehouses. And state AGs continue to launch investigations of climate alliances and sustainability initiatives premised on weak antitrust or consumer-protection theories, in an apparent effort to intimidate players most likely to catalyze a clean-energy transition.<\/p>\n

Defeat of Texas\u2019s SB13 Underscores Vulnerability of State Laws Designed to Punish \u201cEnergy Boycotts\u201d <\/strong><\/h3>\n

In American Sustainable Business Council v. Hegar<\/em><\/a> (W.D. Tex.) (\u201cASBC<\/em>\u201d), a corporate alliance challenged Texas\u2019s 2021 Senate Bill 13<\/a> (\u201cSB 13\u201d), the first law passed by a state that prohibited its entities (including public pension funds) from investing in, or contracting with, firms that \u201cboycott fossil-fuel companies.\u201d As part of SB 13\u2019s implementation, the Texas Comptroller developed a list of 15 firms<\/a> and more than 300 investment funds<\/a> purportedly participating in this boycott. Vendors pursuing state contracts over $100,000 were required to verify that they do not \u201cboycott energy companies.\u201d<\/p>\n

In February, the court granted plaintiffs\u2019 motion for partial summary judgment, enjoining SB 13\u2019s further enforcement. Judge Alan Albright, a Trump appointee, found First Amendment violations because SB 13 was facially overbroad (curtailing an unnecessarily wide range of conduct, including protected forms of speech), and Fourteenth Amendment violations because SB 13 was impermissibly vague (leaving parties unable to reasonably determine the scope of covered conduct). On both counts, Judge Albright cited SB 13\u2019s stated enforcement authority against \u201cany action\u2026intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with\u201d fossil-fuel producers. The court found that this provision could chill clearly protected activities such as \u201cspeaking about the risks posed by fossil fuels, advocating against reliance on fossil fuels, and associating with like-minded organizations.\u201d The court further found that SB 13 already had prompted discriminatory enforcement, because the Comptroller dismissed without explanation some listed firms\u2019 assertions that their purported boycotting actions were \u201cdriven by ordinary business purposes\u201d (which SB 13 ostensibly permitted). Texas has filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit.<\/p>\n

In perhaps his most far-reaching formulation, Judge Albright declared it \u201cdifficult to imagine what sort of conduct is both not an \u2018ordinary business purpose\u2019 and not an expression protected by the First Amendment.\u201d Since a boycott not motivated by financial gain typically receives default treatment as protected speech or conduct, and since these bills exempt routine financially motivated decisions (\u201cordinary business activity\u201d or \u201creasonable business purpose\u201d) from coverage, precisely what constitutional function does such a law serve? Here, the court implicitly called into question the constitutionality of comparable bills passed by at least five additional states: Alabama\u2019s SB 261<\/a> (2023), Arkansas\u2019s HB 1307<\/a> (2023), Idaho\u2019s SB 1291<\/a> (2024), Kentucky\u2019s SB 205<\/a> (2022), and Utah\u2019s SB 97<\/a> (2023). Each of these laws, like Texas\u2019s SB 13, appears to be modeled on the American Legislative Exchange Council\u2019s (\u201cALEC\u2019s\u201d) 2021 draft \u201cEnergy Discrimination Elimination Act<\/a>.\u201d Neither that draft, nor the bills it inspired, explain how they might combat energy boycotts without intrusive intervention into corporations\u2019 business judgment, or infringement of constitutionally protected speech.<\/p>\n

Additional laws<\/a> restricting states\u2019 business engagements with ESG-associated firms, and arguably relying on similarly vague or overbroad statutory language, include: Indiana\u2019s HB 1008<\/a> (2023), Kansas\u2019s HB 2100<\/a> (2023), Louisiana\u2019s HCR 70<\/a> (2023), Montana\u2019s HB 228<\/a> (2023) (containing facially contradictory definitions of whether ESG considerations categorically amount to \u201cnon-pecuniary\u201d decision-making), Tennessee\u2019s SB 955<\/a> (2023) (especially vague in prohibiting ESG considerations that \u201cmay not be material\u201d to a financial analysis), and West Virginia\u2019s SB 262<\/a> (2022).<\/p>\n

Prior to the ASBC <\/em>decision, an Oklahoma court in Don Keenan v. Oklahoma<\/em><\/a> had struck down a similar statute targeting ESG business and investment practices, on free-speech and anti-discrimination grounds. But this ruling<\/a> focused on protections found in Oklahoma\u2019s state constitution, limiting its application nationwide. While the ASBC<\/em> decision, as a district-court ruling, is not controlling precedent in other districts, its forceful decision on federal constitutional protections offers persuasive authority for challenging comparable \u201cenergy boycott\u201d laws outside of Texas.<\/p>\n

Defeat of Texas\u2019s SB 2337 Has Not Stopped Proliferating Efforts to Target Proxy Advisors<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Whereas SB 13 sought to constrain state entities\u2019 investment and procurement decisions, Texas\u2019s SB 2337<\/a>, signed into law in June of 2025, directly imposes speech requirements on private proxy advisors, based on the particular advice they offer. While this law was partially enjoined by the court within months of its passage, copycat bills have passed in at least eleven other states.<\/p>\n

According to SB 2337, advisors who factor ESG or sustainability concerns into a proxy recommendation (whether as part of a financial risk-return calculation on an advisee\u2019s behalf, or in pursuit of collateral benefits for a third party) must disclose and explain their weighing of such factors to clients and to the relevant corporation, and must declare that \u201cthe advice subordinates the financial interests of shareholders to other objectives.\u201d Advisors who recommend a position inconsistent with corporate management\u2019s must similarly detail the financial analysis supporting this recommendation. Yet recommendations that prioritize religious or libertarian social values, or that conform to corporate preferences, face no such obligations.<\/p>\n

SB 2337 was challenged by two major proxy advisors, Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (\u201cISS\u201d), who assert that, as applied, SB 2337 violates their First Amendment rights through content\/viewpoint discrimination and compulsory non-commercial speech. They also argue that SB 2337 violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights through unconstitutionally vague prohibitions, and is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and\/or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.<\/p>\n

The challenges brought by Glass Lewis and ISS were consolidated in Glass Lewis v. Paxton<\/em><\/a> (W.D. Tex.). In August of 2025, several days before SB 2337\u2019s implementation deadline, Judge Albright, presiding over this case as well as the SB 13 suit discussed above, issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits state enforcement against Glass Lewis or ISS, but does not bar enforcement actions by private plaintiffs, nor state enforcement against other potential defendants. Though Judge Albright has yet to issue a legal explanation for the injunction, his statements<\/a> at the August oral argument suggest he considers SB 2337 at the very least to violate the First Amendment. Texas filed and then abandoned<\/a> a Fifth Circuit appeal of the injunction, and a bench trial is anticipated.<\/p>\n

A coalition of nonprofit organizations has sued as well, in Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility v. Paxton<\/a> (W.D. Tex.) (\u201cInterfaith Center<\/em>\u201d), arguing that SB 2337 fails on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Their facial challenge would prohibit state enforcement against any organization. These plaintiffs do not solely provide \u201cproxy advisory services,\u201d but argue that SB 2337 defines this term so vaguely (covering, for instance, any party that receives \u201ccompensation\u201d for \u201cproxy statement research and analysis\u201d) that the law chills their protected speech. Judge Albright, presiding here also, denied these plaintiffs\u2019 motion to consolidate their complaint with those of Glass Lewis and ISS.<\/p>\n

Even as these cases proceed, and with SB 2337 enjoined as to the two firms that comprise approximately 98% of the proxy-services market, copycat legislation has proliferated with notable speed, largely based on a model \u201cProxy Advisor Transparency Act<\/a>\u201d issued by the advocacy organization Consumers\u2019 Research. In just the first two months of 2026, pending state legislation that would single out proxy advisors who consider ESG factors and\/or recommend against management preferences includes: Arizona\u2019s SB 1503<\/a>, Indiana\u2019s HB 1273<\/a>, Iowa\u2019s HF 2196<\/a>, Kansas\u2019s SB 375<\/a>, Nebraska\u2019s LB 728<\/a>, Mississippi\u2019s SB 2676<\/a>, Oklahoma\u2019s HB 4429<\/a>, South Carolina\u2019s H 4985<\/a>, West Virginia\u2019s SB 417<\/a>, and Wisconsin\u2019s SB 879<\/a>. Kentucky\u2019s SB 183<\/a> was also passed last year<\/a>, over Governor Andy Beshear\u2019s veto. Here again, a determination of SB 2337\u2019s unconstitutionality, via either the Glass Lewis<\/em> or Interfaith Center <\/em>challenge, would provide persuasive legal authority against such statutes nationwide.<\/p>\n

State AGs Continue to Attack Reasonable Climate Risk Mitigation<\/strong><\/h3>\n

As legal vulnerabilities have emerged for states\u2019 anti-ESG legislation, state AGs have issued threat letters and announced investigations invoking novel readings of traditional consumer-protection and antitrust laws. For example, in January 2025, eleven state AGs (led by AG Paxton) sent a letter<\/a> to financial institutions, stressing that \u201cradical environmental policies\u201d may violate their legal, contractual, or fiduciary obligations, and inviting responses to help clarify \u201cwhether\u2026enforcement action is appropriate.\u201d\u00a0A 23-state letter<\/a> (led by Iowa AG Brenna Bird) sent in August 2025 to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) requested wide-ranging access to internal documents and client communications, while expressing \u201cgrave concerns\u201d that this nonprofit emissions-abatement advisor and the financial institutions committed to its standards risk violating antitrust or consumer-protection laws. A five-state letter<\/a> (led by Florida AG James Uthmeier) sent in October 2025 to the U.S. Plastics Pact, Consumer Goods Forum, and Green Blue Institute cited \u201cconcerns about collusion and market manipulation\u201d\u2014and a follow-up 10-state letter<\/a> notified nearly 80 corporations associated with these plastic initiatives that continued participation may expose them to liability. A sixteen-state letter<\/a> (led by Montana AG Austin Knudson) also sent in October to Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft expressed \u201ccollective\u00a0concerns\u201d about burgeoning European Union emissions-disclosure regimes, asked \u201cAmerican companies like yours\u00a0[not] to follow European ESG\u2026mandates\u2026unlawful in America,\u201d and requested a response \u201cexplaining in detail the steps\u2026[you have] taken to reject the EU\u2019s anti-American-values CSRD and CSDDD directives.\u201d And a six-state letter<\/a> (led by Florida AG Uthmeier) sent to Ceres in January 2026 expressed concerns that the climate-transition advocate may have acted \u201cas a central coordinator for efforts designed to\u2026steer capital away from certain fossil-fuel investments.\u201d\u00a0Equivalent executive-branch coalitions have also arisen at the level of state financial officers<\/a>, with comptrollers and auditors targeting ESG or sustainability initiatives as suspect \u201cinternational political agendas.\u201d<\/p>\n

Individual AG actions have similarly targeted particular firms. AG Uthmeier has issued<\/a> subpoenas to CDP and SBTi regarding their climate-disclosure services, noting \u201cwhat appears to be a profit-driven feedback loop\u201d potentially violating consumer-protection or antitrust laws. Since March, AG Uthmeier also has undertaken an investigation<\/a> and subsequent court filing<\/a> on whether ESG considerations by Glass Lewis and ISS have misled clients expecting a \u201csound, apolitical investment strategy.\u201d In September, AG Paxton announced his own investigation<\/a> of Glass Lewis and ISS for \u201cpotentially misleading\u2026recommendations that advance radical political agendas\u201d\u2014underscoring proxy advisors\u2019 current status as an attractive target, as both anti-ESG and pro-corporate voices demand a curtailment of shareholder activism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Not to be outdone, President Trump recently issued an Executive Order<\/a> directing the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Labor Department to review \u201cforeign-owned\u201d proxy advisors\u2019 conduct for consumer-protection harms, antitrust implications, and\/or fiduciary violations. So even as recent judicial developments should give firms and organizations increased confidence that reasonable ESG considerations can prevail in court, blustering accusations and investigations look likely to create headwinds so long as climate skeptics hold executive offices. In the meantime, climate risk for corporations, investors, and society only compounds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week, Texas v. BlackRock (E.D. Tex.), the first antitrust case challenging climate collaborations by financial institutions, reached an initial resolution. Texas Attorney General (\u201cAG\u201d) Ken Paxton announced that one of three institutional-investor defendants, Vanguard, had settled. As part of the settlement, Vanguard pledged not to \u201cdirect\u201d its portfolio companies\u2019 business strategies, threaten withdrawal of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2562,"featured_media":28459,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9440],"tags":[65737,69089,69970,69920,9417,69927],"class_list":{"0":"post-28453","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-climate-finance","8":"tag-climate-law","9":"tag-esg","10":"tag-proxy-advisors","11":"tag-state-attorneys-general","12":"tag-state-law","13":"tag-texas-v-blackrock","14":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nAG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Last week, Texas v. BlackRock (E.D. Tex.), the first antitrust case challenging climate collaborations by financial institutions, reached an initial resolution. Texas Attorney General (\u201cAG\u201d) Ken Paxton announced that one of three institutional-investor defendants, Vanguard, had settled. As part of the settlement, Vanguard pledged not to \u201cdirect\u201d its portfolio companies\u2019 business strategies, threaten withdrawal of […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-04T13:38:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-04T14:08:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/03\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"732\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Cynthia Hanawalt and Andy Fitch\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Cynthia Hanawalt and Andy Fitch\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Cynthia Hanawalt and Andy Fitch\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/37390a568bc8447d8c85a6f2ef9e12cd\"},\"headline\":\"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-04T13:38:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-04T14:08:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1950,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Climate Law\",\"ESG\",\"Proxy Advisors\",\"State Attorneys General\",\"State Law\",\"Texas v. BlackRock\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Finance\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/\",\"name\":\"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-04T13:38:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-04T14:08:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":732},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/04\\\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},[{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/37390a568bc8447d8c85a6f2ef9e12cd\",\"name\":\"Cynthia Hanawalt\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/CAH-headshot.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Cynthia Hanawalt\"}},{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/37390a568bc8447d8c85a6f2ef9e12cd\",\"name\":\"Andy Fitch\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/Fitch-Photo-1-1.jpeg\",\"caption\":\"Andy Fitch\"}}]]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Last week, Texas v. BlackRock (E.D. Tex.), the first antitrust case challenging climate collaborations by financial institutions, reached an initial resolution. Texas Attorney General (\u201cAG\u201d) Ken Paxton announced that one of three institutional-investor defendants, Vanguard, had settled. As part of the settlement, Vanguard pledged not to \u201cdirect\u201d its portfolio companies\u2019 business strategies, threaten withdrawal of […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2026-03-04T13:38:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-04T14:08:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":732,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/03\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Cynthia Hanawalt and Andy Fitch","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Cynthia Hanawalt and Andy Fitch","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/"},"author":{"name":"Cynthia Hanawalt and Andy Fitch","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/37390a568bc8447d8c85a6f2ef9e12cd"},"headline":"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court","datePublished":"2026-03-04T13:38:31+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-04T14:08:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/"},"wordCount":1950,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/03\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg","keywords":["Climate Law","ESG","Proxy Advisors","State Attorneys General","State Law","Texas v. BlackRock"],"articleSection":["Climate Finance"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/","name":"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/03\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg","datePublished":"2026-03-04T13:38:31+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-04T14:08:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/03\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/03\/3.3.26-blog-image-replication-domino.variation-scaled-e1772631331559.jpg","width":1200,"height":732},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/03\/04\/ag-investigations-and-copycat-anti-esg-legislation-proliferate-despite-losses-in-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"AG Investigations and Copycat Anti-ESG Legislation Proliferate Despite Losses in Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},[{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/37390a568bc8447d8c85a6f2ef9e12cd","name":"Cynthia Hanawalt","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/06\/CAH-headshot.jpg","caption":"Cynthia Hanawalt"}},{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/37390a568bc8447d8c85a6f2ef9e12cd","name":"Andy Fitch","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/Fitch-Photo-1-1.jpeg","caption":"Andy Fitch"}}]]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28453","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2562"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28453"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28453\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28465,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28453\/revisions\/28465"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/28459"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}