Environmental advocacy groups, facing accusations of attempting to sway judges, haveremoved and anonymized the identities of jurists collaborating with the activist network. This follows a digital report from FOX News that highlights an online forum dedicated to updates on climate lawsuits.
Established in 2018 by the Institute for Environmental Law, the Climate Justice Project (CJP) aims to equip judges with reliable education about climate science and its implications. Their website emphasizes the importance of understanding how climate science develops and affects our world.
Republican lawmakers, including Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, have criticized the group, alleging that they are “training judges” to adopt unconventional strategies in climate litigation. In July, FOX News Digital reported on the CJP’s national forum where legal updates and information were shared among participants.
This summer, a testimonial page from CJP was reviewed—showcasing positive feedback from academics involved in their program—though some judges had been misrepresented in an earlier report by FOX News. An archived link revealed that Judge Sam Scheele’s remarks were present in May but deleted by late July after media scrutiny.
Internal communications reveal connections between judges and climate activists, raising ethical questions.
The surge in climate-related lawsuits in the U.S. has been notable, especially during the Biden administration. Judge Scheele, in comments which were initially public, expressed gratitude for the contributions made to the CJP’s efforts.
By the end of July, archived records indicated that his quote was removed from the CJP site, along with others, now attributed to anonymous judges. Meanwhile, there was still one quote from a prominent figure in a progressive nonprofit, although the timeline for these changes remains unclear.
A spokesperson for the Institute for Environmental Law stated that the edits were made to safeguard privacy and avoid unsubstantiated backlash against individuals. They emphasized that judges are often encouraged to engage in ongoing education about evolving legal topics, including science.
Documents reviewed revealed that Judge Scheele had been consistently associated with the CJP since September 2022, until changes occurred that anonymized some testimonials while retaining others. FOX News Digital learned about an outdated chat forum where judges and CJP staff exchanged information on climate research, congratulated each other’s event successes, and discussed recent legal cases.
The Climate Justice Project is closely linked to key lawsuits amid claims of impartiality.
One conversation featured Judge Travis Luster from Delaware sharing a video from a climate presentation, suggesting that such lawsuits could potentially threaten the fuel industry’s stability. He cautioned others against sharing this content without checking its propriety. Scheele supported Luster’s video, describing it as commendable.
Internal communications highlight close ties between judges and environmental advocates.
Regarding the rising trend of climate lawsuits, documentation from FOX News Digital also revealed a potentially detrimental impact on U.S. energy consumers. Judge Scheele’s office did not respond to inquiries about the removal of his name and comments from CJP’s website.
Additionally, his office responded to earlier inquiries about his participation in a climate science conference in 2022, clarifying that it was an unexpected opportunity and emphasized his commitment to unbiased judicial management.
The CJP stated their mailing list was intended to facilitate networking among climate science program members. The organization, in partnership with the National Judicial University, claims to educate state court judges on climate science using fact-based materials.
As climate litigation has risen dramatically in recent years, particularly targeting major oil companies for what are seen as misleading marketing practices regarding climate risks, it has prompted significant scrutiny. Senator Cruz has publicly questioned the neutrality of the CJP, alleging that it promotes a political agenda.
Facing these claims, the CJP asserts its commitment to providing objective information grounded in scientific consensus. Discussions around climate issues within judicial circles have intensified, leading to ongoing debates over ethical standards and judicial conduct.
