# Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright > [!note] Stub > This is a short entry that hasn't been fully written yet. **Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright** is the case in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the Energy Department's Climate Working Group was a federal advisory committee subject to the [[Federal Advisory Committee Act]], and that it had violated that Act. Judge William Young issued the ruling on 30 January 2026. The defendant is Energy Secretary [[Chris Wright]], who had convened the group in April 2025 to produce a report on climate science outside the ordinary chartering process. The plaintiffs were the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists. The court found violations across four areas: establishing and using an advisory committee, holding open meetings, providing open records, and maintaining fair balance. It did not strike the group's report from the public record — the report remains published and the Department has continued to stand behind it — but the ruling made the report procedurally unusable as a technical basis for federal action. **Why it matters.** The Act reaches a body only if it has at least one non-federal member and is "established or utilized" by the government, with "utilized" meaning the government exercises actual management or control over its operation. That definition is the main thing standing between the advisory-committee rules and a group convened outside them. This ruling is the live test of it: the Department's route out of the Act failed precisely because it had kept control of the group it convened. ## See also - [[Federal Advisory Committee Structure Tree]] — the system this case tests, and the exclusions a group has to fit to stay outside it - [[Federal Advisory Committee Act]] — the statute and its requirements - [[Chris Wright]] — the named defendant - [[Department of Energy]] · [[Policy Hub]]