The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has initiated an investigation into the Climate Judiciary Project, a program run by the Environmental Law Institute, over concerns it is improperly influencing judges in climate-related cases. Critics, including former Representative Jason Chaffetz, describe the efforts as a coordinated manipulation of the judicial system. The probe focuses on potential violations of judicial ethics and lack of transparency in funding and participant details.
The Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), established by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), positions itself as offering objective training on climate science to federal and state judges. However, in August, the House Judiciary Committee raised alarms about its activities, stating that public reports indicate efforts to sway judges handling lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. These initiatives, the committee argues, aim to predispose judges toward plaintiffs claiming harm from the production and sale of such products.
The investigation examines whether CJP's programs breach the Judicial Code of Conduct by engaging in ex parte advocacy on contentious issues like the social cost of carbon and the political-question doctrine, both central to ongoing litigation. "The scope of ELI’s and CJP’s attempt to influence judges is not trivial," the committee noted, highlighting that the project has reached over 2,000 judges while withholding details on attendees and funding sources.
Recent scrutiny intensified after media revelations of a private online forum where judges and CJP staff shared climate law updates. In response, the organization anonymized judge names, restricted access to its forums, and deleted testimonials from its website. Financial records add to the concerns: in 2023, about 13% of ELI's revenue stemmed from Environmental Protection Agency grants. Consequently, 23 state attorneys general have urged probes into whether these public funds are subsidizing attempts to bias courts against the energy sector.
Despite these alleged influences, climate litigation has encountered setbacks in 2025. Judges in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina rejected cases, affirming that global emissions regulation falls under Congress and the EPA, not state courts.
Former Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz, who served from 2009 to 2017, has labeled the CJP's approach a direct threat to judicial independence.
