Following yesterday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, Accountable.US today published a new report revealing conservative kingpin Leonard Leo’s network has distributed at least $3.2 million to groups and individuals involved in the effort to shield Trump from accountability. The report, first covered in The Guardian, illustrates Leo’s continued support of Trump — and his willingness to activate his right-wing network in Trump’s defense.

It’s no surprise that Leonard Leo is backing efforts to support Trump at the Supreme Court. Leo helped Trump draw up his Supreme Court nominee shortlist — many of whom are justices on the bench set to hear this critical case — and now, Leo’s deploying his right-wing network in support of Trump as he faces consequences for his violent insurrection. It couldn’t be clearer where Leo stands."

Accountable.US President Caroline Ciccone

The new Accountable.US review of the amicus filers and their lawyers reveals a cast of close Leo allies who enjoy funding from his network, currently serve in the Federalist Society’s leadership alongside Leo, worked with Leo on Trump’s Supreme Court appointments, have exchanged lavish praise with Leo, and have been featured in hundreds of Federalist Society events.

One example is the far-right Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which submitted an amicus brief in support of Trump. PILF has taken at least $650,000 from Leo-tied groups, and its leadership includes close Leo allies Neil Corkery and John Eastman, as well as Shawna Powell, who has been employed by Leo’s Marble Freedom Trust.

Read the full report here.

Ahead of Trump v. Anderson oral arguments, Accountable.US released a report exposing Trump’s lawyers as close allies to Leonard Leo and leaders of multiple aggressive campaigns to advocate for and defend conservative Supreme Court justices from corruption crises. The report found key connections between the lawyers, justices, and Leo, the Supreme Court billionaire “matchmaker” involved in the case — sparking questions of impartiality for an already-compromised Court.

back to top