HEADLINE: “Michael Mann’s Legal Costs Now Climbing Past $1.1 Million”, By Charles Rotter
“The Washington, D.C. Superior Court’s May 22, 2025 ruling against Michael Mann is the latest in a series of defeats for the climate scientist’s prolonged legal offensive against his critics.”
Michael Mann’s Legal Costs Now Climbing Past $1.1 Million
The Washington, D.C. Superior Court’s May 22, 2025 ruling against Michael Mann is the latest in a series of defeats for the climate scientist’s prolonged legal offensive against his critics. Judge Alfred S. Irving ordered Mann to pay $477,350.80 in attorney’s fees and related costs to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Rand Simberg, following their successful partial dismissal of claims under the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act.
This judgment comes just months after a separate ruling ordered Mann to pay $540,820.21 to National Review. Together, the two awards raise Mann’s current liability to over $1.1 million—a staggering total for a campaign that began over a decade ago with the aim of silencing dissent through strategic litigation.
Mann’s lawsuit, filed in 2012, named CEI, Simberg, National Review, and Mark Steyn as defendants over criticism of his scientific work, specifically the “hockey stick” graph that catapulted him to fame in climate policy circles. From the beginning, Mann positioned the suit as a defense of science against ideological attack. The courts have increasingly seen it otherwise.
In the May ruling, the court rejected Mann’s argument that success on appeal doesn’t qualify as a victory for fee recovery. The judge noted that CEI and Simberg’s appellate success not only resulted in dismissal of two claims—including an emotional distress count—but also changed the practical scope of litigation. CEI, for example, avoided discovery and litigation over its own statements, limiting the remaining case to vicarious liability claims for Simberg’s blog post.
The judgment also reflects judicial skepticism toward Mann’s insistence that his litigation strategy was justified. The court ruled there were no “special circumstances” that would make a fee award unjust. It found CEI and Simberg’s legal fees reasonable, subject to only modest adjustments. These included a $4,428.50 reduction for charges above standard Laffey Matrix rates and $1,535 removed for non-litigation-related activities, such as responding to press inquiries and participating in a Cato Institute event.
A 20% across-the-board reduction was also applied to reflect the partial nature of the anti-SLAPP success. The court awarded an additional $35,951.60 for “fees on fees”—expenses incurred in the process of recovering attorney’s fees. That figure too was discounted proportionally.
This ruling follows the court’s earlier decision in January to award $540,820.21 in fees to National Review. As detailed in Minding the Campus, the court dismissed significant parts of Mann’s claims and found National Review entitled to recover costs under the same statute. That decision similarly highlighted the ineffectiveness of Mann’s strategy, reinforcing that partial victories in speech-related litigation still entitle defendants to reimbursement when key claims are thrown out.
The cumulative picture is increasingly clear. Mann’s legal actions, originally cast as a principled stand against defamation, now appear more like an extended attempt to chill public discourse around climate science. The irony is that the lawsuits have produced not vindication, but growing financial liability, mounting judicial criticism, and a narrowing of the legal issues in his favor.
For CEI, Simberg, National Review, and Mark Steyn—whose $1 million jury verdict was recently slashed to just $5,000—these outcomes signal more than financial recovery. They reflect a turning tide in the battle over who controls scientific debate in the public square. Courts are signaling that disagreement, even sharp criticism, is not defamation—and certainly not actionable when protected by the First Amendment.
As for Mann, the tally keeps rising. What began as an effort to impose reputational costs on his critics has resulted in real financial ones for himself. And the legal system, after years of attrition, is slowly but unmistakably ruling that criticism—especially in matters of public policy—is not a crime, but a right.
Today’s verdict:
2025.05.22 – Order Granting in Part CEI’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Supp. FeesDownload
Other recent WUWT articles on this neverending case.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/18/help-a-mann-out/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/06/manns-dc-trick/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/03/mark-steyn-and-the-reversal-of-fortune/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/16/trial-of-mann-v-steyn-post-trial-motions-edition/
BOTTOMLINE: “As for Mann, the tally keeps rising. What began as an effort to impose reputational costs on his critics has resulted in real financial ones for himself. And the legal system, after years of attrition, is slowly but unmistakably ruling that criticism—especially in matters of public policy—is not a crime, but a right.”
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy
Thank you for passing along this good news.