Federal judges accused of being influenced by a corrupt climate justice group.

An American energy advocacy group has released a report warning that a legal training program is corruptly impacting the courts and undermining the rule of law in the name of promoting climate change alarmism.

The American Energy Institute (AEI) has released a new report accusing the Environmental Law Institute's Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) of misrepresenting itself as a neutral organization that educates judges on questionable climate science.

The report claims that CJP is a partner to over 20 public plaintiffs who are suing energy providers for damages caused by climate change. Additionally, CJP has trained over 2,000 state and federal judges.

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, claims that the training program is similar to interfering with referees before a match and a game.

Isaac stated in an interview with Planet Chronicle Digital that he was gaining access to them and sharing his opinions, ultimately steering them down a specific path.

The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) spokesperson, Nick Collins, stated that the report contains inaccurate information.

The Climate Judiciary Project is a non-partisan educational initiative that offers judges a mainstream, evidence-based scientific curriculum. CJP does not take sides on individual cases, advocate for specific outcomes, participate in litigation, support or coordinate with parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule. ELI's funders include individuals, foundations, and organizations, ranging from energy companies to government agencies to private philanthropies, and none of them dictate our work, as stated by Collins.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against Big Oil companies in recent years, utilizing public nuisance laws to hold them accountable for the harm caused by climate change.

The city of Honolulu filed a lawsuit against several major fossil fuel companies in 2020, including Exxon and Chevron, accusing them of not warning consumers about the risks of their products causing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

The Hawaii Supreme Court received an appeal from energy companies, stating that federal law restricts individual states' ability to create comprehensive energy policies.

The Supreme Court has shown interest in taking up the case, as the companies appealed again after the court ruled against them and advanced the case to trial.

In May, Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Mark E. Recktenwald quietly revealed that he had taken a course in the Climate Judiciary Project, which aims to educate judges across the country on how to handle climate change litigation.

"The Climate Judiciary Project of the Environmental Law Institute is working with leading national judicial education institutions to help judges understand complex scientific and legal questions related to climate litigation, which are rapidly developing."

The AEI claims that the program is involved in anti-democratic social engineering by influencing judges in cases like Hawaii and receiving funding from left-wing money men who also fund climate change cases.

The report claims that the educational materials were prepared by activist academics who are supporting the plaintiffs or advising them with legal briefs. These materials contain pro-plaintiff messaging, including rigged studies made for litigation purposes.

The report claims that CJP conceals its affiliations with the plaintiffs, which may cause judges to unknowingly rely on an untrustworthy source when seeking information. The report also urges state authorities to take action to prevent the use of public resources for a campaign that undermines the rule of law and public trust in the courts.

The same activist groups that are providing funding to the Collective Action Fund are also giving millions to CJP, which is being used to cover the legal fees for the Hawaii case, led by Sher Edling LLP, the law firm representing 24 climate plaintiffs, as stated in AEI's report.

The U.S. Judicial Conference has cautioned judges about attending seminars that could potentially influence them in an improper manner.

The U.S. Judicial Conference argues that the influence may be exerted through program content, contact between judges and litigants, and prerequisites provided to program attendees.

CJP's partnership with the plaintiffs is concealed by AEI's report due to the potential ethical issues it may cause in the judiciary.

Sandra Nichols Thiam, the ELI vice president and director of judicial education, acknowledged in a 2023 press statement that if there was even a hint of bias, they wouldn't be able to carry out their work.

"According to AEI, CJP made minimal disclosures to give the impression of integrity, but their admissions reveal that their purpose is to facilitate informal, off-the-record conversations between judges and climate activists under the guise of judicial education. Secrecy is crucial to their operation, as their ultimate goal is to establish a legal framework that supports climate action, as Thiam has stated."

CJP's work is considered an attack on the rule of law by AEI, a group that promotes policies for America's energy security and economic prosperity.

Judges in America are not influenced by the powerful before their cases are heard, according to the report.