The Environmental Law Institute has shared its climate curriculum with more than 2,000 judges around the country.
An “educational” program that aims to convince judges to side with climate activists in state and federal cases has already reached more than 2,000 judges nationwide.
The program, called the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), began under the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) in 2018. Its objective, according to ELI, is to “make available to federal, state, and local judges the basic science they need to adjudicate the climate litigation over which they preside.”
Many of the cases these judges oversee carry major consequences, and much of the educational material panders to racial theory or other left-wing ideologies. The curriculum includes the claim that, “Race is far and away the strongest indicator for heightened climate risk.”
The curriculum includes 15 modules, covering topics from the “Overview of European Climate Litigation” and “Fundamental Rights.” In one example, the teachings claim that a right to a stable climate environment is a human right.
The House Judiciary Committee opened an investigation into ELI at the end of August to examine its distribution of climate-change education programs aimed at influencing both state and federal judges to rule in favor of plaintiffs in climate-related cases. The judiciary committee’s investigation is rooted in concerns over what the curriculum is actually teaching.
“Public reports have documented concerns around apparent efforts by the Environmental Law Institute (‘ELI’) and its Climate Judiciary Project (‘CJP’) to influence judges who
potentially may be presiding over lawsuits related to alleged climate change,” a letter from House Judiciary to ELI reads. “These 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 House panel’s concern is the magnitude of the cases some of these judges are overseeing, paired with the content and thought processes that CJP is pushing. Plaintiffs are seeking massive sums in damages in some of these cases — so large that any one decision could negatively affect the U.S. economy.
For example, in one lawsuit, “the plaintiff seeks a remarkable $53 billion in damages for a single heat-wave event over a few days in 2021,” the letter reads. “If even just a few such claims were to succeed, the 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. 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.”
The EJI website, however, does claim the project has a commitment to impartiality and non-advocacy.
“Any attempt to suggest that the Climate Judiciary Project’s judicial educational activities are improper is entirely without merit,” ELI told National Review in a statement. “These programs are no different than other judicial education programs providing training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend. 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.”
Many of the groups that fund the project, however, are left-leaning organizations. The Hewlett Foundation, for example, has donated $750,000 to ELI since 2020, specifically for the CJP project. Other beneficiaries of money from the Hewlett Foundation include millions to both the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Africa Region of Planned Parenthood.
American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac told National Review that ELI’s inauthentic veil of nonpartisanship is part of the concern with the group’s efforts.
“This congressional inquiry is a necessary and welcome development. For too long, the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project has operated behind a veneer of neutrality while quietly advancing a coordinated effort to influence judges in climate-related litigation,” Isaac said.
Previously, CJP had an open online forum, in which judges were able to chat with CJP leadership about various climate-related issues and share legal updates. The forum was made private earlier this year, Fox News reported in August.
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) also previously criticized the group, saying the project is used to “make [judges] agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics.” The committee’s concerns also include an overall lack of transparency with CJP. Funding for events, the identities of the judges who have attended the events, and the curriculum is often concealed, the letter explains.
“These activities raise serious concerns about judicial impartiality and the integrity of our legal system. Congress is right to demand transparency and accountability from any group attempting to tip the scales of justice through backdoor advocacy,” Isaac said.
The committee asked ELI to provide all documents pertaining to curricula, funding, expenses, and attendees or participants in the curriculum by September 12.