The American Energy Institute (AEI) has released a new report that is raising concerns about a legal training program that it claims is influencing the courts in a corrupt manner to promote climate alarmism. The report alleges that the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) is presenting itself as a neutral entity teaching judges about questionable climate science while actually being a partner to more than two dozen public plaintiffs suing energy providers over climate change damages.
According to the report, CJP has trained over 2,000 state and federal judges, leading to accusations that the program is interfering with the judicial process by steering judges towards certain outcomes. The CEO of AEI, Jason Isaac, likened the program to “interfering with the referees before a match and before a game.”
In response, a spokesperson for the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) denied the allegations, stating that the Climate Judiciary Project is a non-partisan educational initiative that provides judges with evidence-based scientific curriculum without taking stances on individual cases. The ELI also emphasized that their funders come from a variety of sources and do not dictate their work.
The report comes at a time when several lawsuits targeting Big Oil companies have been making their way through the courts, using mechanisms like public nuisance laws to hold energy providers accountable for climate change damages. One such case involving the city of Honolulu and major fossil fuel companies is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The AEI report alleges that CJP has received funding from activist groups supporting climate change cases and has ties to plaintiffs involved in such litigation. The report also raises concerns about the lack of transparency in CJP’s operations and calls for relevant state authorities to ensure that public resources are not being used to promote a campaign that undermines the rule of law.
Overall, the report by AEI paints a picture of a program that is allegedly influencing judges in a biased manner and calls into question the integrity of the legal training provided by the Climate Judiciary Project.
