House Judiciary Committee investigates climate organization supposedly affecting federal judges

House Judiciary Committee Investigates Climate Law Groups

The House Judiciary Committee has initiated an investigation into whether certain climate law groups are inappropriately influencing federal judges in environmental matters. This inquiry, led by Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), involves sending out four letters to various judicial organizations and attorneys seeking details about their dealings with the Environmental Law Institute (ELI).

The investigation stems from allegations that the ELI and its Climate Justice Project (CJP) may be attempting to sway judges overseeing climate change-related cases. One letter explicitly states that reports indicate efforts by ELI and CJP to affect judicial decisions in favor of plaintiffs asserting harms linked to fossil fuel products.

Jordan and Issa highlight concerns about the existing policies of the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS), which recognize the risks of private educational programs distributing materials to courts. However, they suggest that these policies might allow groups like ELI and CJP to unduly influence judicial outcomes through the content they present and their interactions with both judges and litigants.

In another correspondence addressed to David Bookbinder, who is involved in climate-related litigation, the committee raises questions about potential coordination between him and ELI or CJP on judicial training resources. It accuses him of giving pre-publication access and peer review to ELI documents while he was previously involved in a related lawsuit.

They argue that this situation hints at collaborative efforts during his representation of private clients in climate litigation, which raises ethical concerns.

Moreover, a third letter sent to the federal Judicial Center claims that while these climate groups assert they offer neutral information to judges, there is skepticism regarding the impartiality of the materials used in judicial seminars, which some Republican members feel may be biased toward plaintiffs in climate cases.

Republicans specifically note that many materials created by ELI and CJP for judicial training haven’t been made public, suggesting opacity and potential bias. They call into question whether the limited publicly available materials from the CJP’s curriculum appear to be intended to sway judicial opinions.

For context, ELI is a nonprofit organization focused on promoting climate science-informed policies within legal and public sectors. The CJP is a specific initiative within ELI that aims to develop educational resources for judges.