House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is under pressure to subpoena records from the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) as the American Energy Institute (AEI) alleges hidden coordination between climate advocacy groups and judicial training programs. Jason Isaac, AEI CEO, claims evidence from a court filing indicates that the CJP may have played a role in shaping the scientific studies and judicial training modules used in ongoing climate litigation. Isaac argues that this coordination undermines the impartiality of the judicial process, as seen in the Sept. 12 Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil case, where lead attorney Roger Worthing, has allegedly been involved in scientific studies presented as peer-reviewed evidence. The AEI asserts that the CJP, through its education modules on attribution science—a field assessing the role of human-caused climate change in extreme weather events—has been shaped by plaintiffs’ attorneys, thus influencing the outcomes of the cases.
Isaac’s letter to Jordan calls for the disclosure of communications, draft documents, and funding agreements related to the CJP and the studies in question. The AEI’s claims align with broader concerns within conservative energy circles about the influence of climate advocacy groups on judicial proceedings. The ELI, through spokesperson Nick Collins, has denied any coordination with plaintiffs’ counsel, stating that the CJP provides evidence-based training to judges on climate science and legal matters. Collins emphasized that the CJP’s programs are no different from other judicial education initiatives, offering fact-based training to judges who voluntarily opt to attend. The AEI, however, continues to push for transparency, asserting that the CJP’s involvement in shaping court materials compromises the judicial process.
The ongoing debate is part of a larger political struggle over the role of climate science in legal and public policy. While the AEI and other conservative groups argue that the CJP’s activities represent a form of judicial manipulation, the ELI maintains that its initiatives are neutral and scientifically grounded. The case has sparked further scrutiny, particularly as the Trump administration recently secured a legal victory in a $16 billion climate litigation case, highlighting the significant financial and political stakes involved in these disputes. With Rep. Jordan’s response yet to be determined, the issue of judicial integrity in climate litigation remains a focal point for both political and legal circles.