Judicial Training Programs Under Scrutiny: Climate Litigation's Push for Influence on the Bench

A new report by Michael Toth of the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas details a coordinated effort by the Environmental Law Institute's (ELI) Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), launched in 2018, to provide climate science training to thousands of judges nationwide. The program, which ELI describes as neutral and evidence-based, has drawn criticism for overlapping donors, advisors, and content with Sher Edling LLP, a firm leading over two dozen public nuisance lawsuits against energy companies on behalf of states and municipalities.

Corroborating investigations reveal that CJP seminars targeted jurisdictions with active climate cases, including California, Delaware, and New York. Emails and materials obtained show judges encouraged to develop 'action plans' and influence peers. Funding links include the Hewlett Foundation and JPB Foundation, which also support climate litigation efforts.

The controversy extended to official resources. The Fourth Edition of the Federal Judicial Center's (FJC) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, released in 2025, included a new climate chapter drawing heavily from writings by Sher Edling's Michael Burger. Following complaints from 22 Republican state attorneys general citing conflicts of interest, the FJC removed the chapter in February 2026. The National Academies of Sciences initially defended related materials but faced parallel questions.

House Judiciary Committee probes, including letters to ELI and related attorneys, examined whether trainings bypassed adversarial processes to shape judicial views on attribution science and damages. ELI maintains its curriculum relies on authoritative sources like National Climate Assessments and emphasizes it does not advise on case outcomes. Critics, including the American Energy Institute, argue the one-sided focus on plaintiff-friendly theories risks tilting the scales in ongoing litigation.

This episode highlights a broader pattern where climate lawsuits serve as vehicles for policy change, potentially pressuring corporations and governments through judicial channels rather than legislation. Updated disclosure rules for judicial education and vetting of institutional partnerships could address perceived imbalances.