The House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation Friday into an environmental activist group for allegedly seeking to bias judges hearing climate-related cases, the Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.
The Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), a project of the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), offers a curriculum that has been used to educate nearly 2,000 judges on the impact of climate change. CJP’s efforts “appear to have the underlying goal of predisposing federal and state judges in favor of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the manufacturing, marketing, or sale of fossil-fuel products,” the committee wrote in an Aug. 29 letter to ELI President Jordan Diamond obtained by the DCNF.
Public reports indicate several judges presiding over key climate-related cases have worked with ELI.
Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald oversaw Honolulu’s lawsuit seeking damages from oil companies for their alleged contribution to climate change, though he previously taught a course and gave presentations for ELI, the DCNF reported in 2023. One of the attorneys who represented Honolulu, Michael Burger, has also spoke at ELI events.
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who oversaw a case brought by youth alleging the federal government violated their rights by encouraging the use of fossil fuels, likewise participated in a 2020 ELI event. The Supreme Court declined in March to revive the case, ending litigation that stretched over nearly a decade.
CJP also operated an online forum from Sept. 2022 to May 2024 allowing CJP leaders to directly communicate with judges, though the public link was recently taken down, according to Fox News.
“Any attempt to suggest that the Climate Judiciary Project’s judicial educational activities are improper is entirely without merit,” ELI said in a statement to the DCNF. “CJP provides evidence-based and factual information to judges about climate science and how it is arising in the law in partnership with leading national and state judicial education institutions through their established programs. These programs are no different than other judicial education programs providing training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend.”
ELI also stated that CJP “does not participate in litigation, provide support for or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule on any issue or in any case.”
“This information also raises questions about possible coordination between ELI or CJP with third parties interested in securing judgments against defendants in climate-related cases,” the letter states.
Experts who present at these events are not “neutral” as the organization advertises, the committee’s letter states, but are “known associates of organizations (including funding entities) closely allied with the radical decarbonization movement.”
More than 2,000 judges have participated in CJP events since 2018, the group’s website states. Yet the identities of judges who participate and the funding sources for the events are not made public, nor are many of the educational materials, the committee notes.
“Parties to lawsuits thus have no way of knowing whether the judges in their cases are among the thousands that ELI and CJP have attempted to influence, and have no way to meaningfully evaluate whether the judges should recuse from their cases,” the letter continues.
The committee is requesting documents and communications relating to external funding, expenses covered for participating judges and training materials since 2019. It is also seeking a list of presenters at ELI events, judges who have participated or been invited and individuals who have funded judicial education efforts.
Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz characterized CJP as “judicial capture” during a hearing in June. Twenty-three Republican state attorneys general urged Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin to cancel any ongoing grants to ELI in an Aug. 26 letter.
If plaintiffs in climate lawsuits succeed, “cumulative effect of these judgments on U.S. energy producers would severely increase the price of energy for hard-working Americans and the U.S. military,” the judiciary committee’s letter states.
“At worst, these damages could cripple the entire industry, leaving Americans subject to the whims of foreign oil producers and raising serious national security concerns,” it continues. “Fundamental principles of American jurisprudence require the impartiality of judges.”
