A new report by an American energy advocacy group is sounding the alarm on a legal training program that it says is ‘corruptly influencing the courts and destroying the rule of law to promote climate cult alarmism.’
The new report released by the American Energy Institute (AEI) alleges that the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) is ‘falsely portraying itself as a neutral entity teaching judges about questionable climate science.’
The report also alleges that CJP is a partner to more than two dozen public plaintiffs suing energy providers to hold them liable for damages resulting from climate change effects. To date, CJP has trained more than 2,000 state and federal judges, the report says.
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, says the training program is ‘really like interfering with the referees before a match and before a game.’
‘You’re getting access to them and sharing your opinions and steering them down a certain path,’ Isaac said in an interview with Fox News Digital.
Nick Collins, a spokesperson for the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) said the report ‘is full of misinformation.’
‘The Climate Judiciary Project is a non-partisan, educational initiative that provides judges with a mainstream, evidence-based scientific curriculum. CJP does not take stances on individual cases, advocate for specific outcomes, participate in litigation, support for or coordinate with parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule. ELI’s funders include individuals, foundations, and organizations, ranging from energy companies to government agencies to private philanthropies, and none of them dictate our work,’ Collins said.
In recent years, several lawsuits have percolated through the courts targeting Big Oil companies, leveraging mechanisms like public nuisance laws to incur liability for climate change damage.
One such case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2020, the city of Honolulu sued several major fossil fuel companies, including Exxon and Chevron, alleging the companies’ products cause greenhouse gas emissions and global warming without warning consumers about the risks.
The energy companies appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, arguing that federal law prevents individual states from effectively shaping energy policies for all states.
But the court ruled against the companies, advancing the case to trial. The companies appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court, which signaled interest in June in taking up the case.
Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Mark E. Recktenwald quietly disclosed in May that he presented for a course in the Climate Judiciary Project. According to the ELI, the Climate Judiciary Project is designed to educate judges across the country on how to handle climate change litigation that comes before them.
‘As the body of climate litigation grows, judges must consider complex scientific and legal questions, many of which are developing rapidly,’ CJP states on its website. ‘To address these issues, the Climate Judiciary Project of the Environmental Law Institute is collaborating with leading national judicial education institutions to meet judges’ need for basic familiarity with climate science methods and concepts.’
But the AEI says the program ‘is a partner in this anti-democratic social engineering’ through its influence of judges involved in the types of cases, like the Hawaii case, and through its funding by ‘the same leftwing (sic) moneymen bankrolling the climate change cases.’
The ‘educational materials’ are, the report states, ‘prepared by activist academics who are advising the plaintiffs or supporting their claims with legal briefs. And the materials are full of pro-plaintiff messaging, including rigged made-for-litigation ‘studies.’’
The report also alleges that ‘CJP conceals its ties to the plaintiffs, such that judges seeking information in good faith may not know that CJP is an untrustworthy source’ and calls on ‘relevant state authorities [to] ensure that public resources are not being used toward a campaign that is corrosive to the rule of law and trust in the courts.’
According to AEI’s report, CJP has received ‘millions in funding from the same activist groups who are providing grants to the Collective Action Fund through which money is flowing to Sher Edling LLP,’ the law firm spearheading the Hawaii case, to help cover the legal fees required to bring the climate cases. Sher Edling is counsel for two dozen climate plaintiffs, according to its website.
The U.S. Judicial Conference, which governs U.S. court systems, has warned judges of seminars where they may be ‘influenced inappropriately.’
‘That influence, it is argued, may be exerted through program content, contact between judges and those who litigate before them, and prerequisites provided to program attendees,’ the U.S. Judicial Conference states.
AEI’s report alleges that CJP ‘hides its partnership with the plaintiffs because they know these ties create judicial ethics problems.’
AEI says that the ELI vice president and director of judicial education, Sandra Nichols Thiam, acknowledged as much in a 2023 press statement, saying, ‘If we even appeared biased or if there was a whiff of bias, we wouldn’t be able to do what we’re doing.’
‘Taken together, it appears CJP made the thinnest possible disclosures to create the appearance of rectitude,’ AEI states. ‘But their admissions confirm that CJP exists to facilitate informal, ex parte contacts between judges and climate activists under the guise of judicial education. And secrecy remains essential to their operation, whose goal, as Thiam has said, is to develop ‘a body of law that supports climate action.”
AEI, a group self-described as ‘dedicated to promoting policies that ensure America’s energy security and economic prosperity,’ says CJP’s work is ‘an attack on the rule of law.’
‘In America, the powerful aren’t allowed to coax and manipulate judges before their cases are heard,’ the report reads.