Based on a unique data set of research reports that appear in media coverage of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline conflict in the United States, the study brings together perspectives in social movement theory and the sociology of science and technology by (1) developing an understanding of the epistemic dimension of framing through the analysis of the strategic use of different types of research produced by experts in the context of social movement conflicts and (2) examining the extent to which research is relevant for regulatory and judicial decision making. The project identifies over 50 research reports that proponents and opponents discuss in the media. Proponents favor reports with economic framing, and opponents respond to those reports but also produce or fund reports that document environmental and other risks and political influence. Regulatory agencies at both the federal and state level tend to be aligned with proponents, but the federal courts provided independent decisions that contributed to the decision by developers to withdraw from the project. The analysis draws attention to an under-studied area of environmental and social movement conflict that brings together the framing and political sociology of science literatures. It also develops generalizable implications for future research as well as actionable, problem-oriented knowledge for activists and advocates. For example, the study suggests that activists may want to focus limited research resources on developing studies that can be used in regulatory and legal battles. If regulatory agencies are somewhat or highly captured, resources would best be spent on litigation in the courts.