Judges and experts linked to climate justice group amid allegations of bias in litigation.

Despite publicly downplaying their connections to judges and experts involved in climate change litigation, a controversial judicial advocacy organization funded by left-wing nonprofits continues to work with them.

In a recent letter to The Wall Street Journal, Jordan Diamond, President of the Environmental Law Institute Climate Judiciary Project, stated that the project does not participate in litigation, provide support or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case.

The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) established the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) in 2018 to provide "reliable, up-to-date information" on climate change litigation. The project has expanded to various state and federal courts, including appellate courts, as cities and states pursue high-profile litigation against the oil industry.

Several CJP expert lawyers and judges have close ties to the curriculum and are deeply involved in climate litigation, according to a Planet Chronicle Digital review.

Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University professor, collaborated on the CJP curriculum and presented "Evidence of Change: Judging Climate Litigation" with Sandra Nichols Thiam at the 2022 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference on July 20, 2022.

From 2019 to 2022, Oppenheimer has consistently filed amicus briefs related to climate change in various state litigations.

In 2022, Robin Kundis Craig, a professor at the University of Utah's Law School, created a module for CJP and filed amicus briefs, demonstrating her involvement in court cases.

In 2023, Craig was included in an order allowing legal scholars to file an amicus brief, which was signed by Justice Mark Recktenwald, who had previously disclosed that he taught an April course with the Environmental Law Institute Climate Judiciary Project.

In 2022, Recktenwald co-presented at a National Judicial College webinar sponsored by CJP on "Hurricanes in a Changing Climate and Related Litigation." In 2023, he co-presented with Professor Robert DeConto at a National Judicial College seminar on "Rising Seas and Litigation: What Judges Need to Know about Warming-Driven Sea-Level Rise."

In October 2023, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected an appeal from oil companies to dismiss a Honolulu lawsuit regarding climate misinformation.

In July 2022, Craig filed an amicus in Hawaii state court and an order was signed by Judge Jeffrey Crabtree, who is a member of the National Judicial College Curriculum Development Committee, which creates curricula for "Environmental Law Essential for the Judiciary."

The significance of state court judges in environmental law should not be overlooked, as stated on the curriculum's website.

Ann Carlson, who joined the Biden administration in 2021, served on ELI's board of directors for years while also providing pro bono consulting for Sher Edling, an eco law firm representing a number of jurisdictions, on litigation against oil companies. Sher Edling counsel Michael Burger has also participated in multiple ELI events, and former Sher Edling lawyer Meredith Wilensky was previously an ELI Public Interest Law Fellow.

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law's executive director, Burger, is an ELI presenter who has filed amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs in climate cases across the United States.

In October 2017, the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA hosted a talk featuring Vic Sher from Sher Edling, titled "Suing Over Climate Change Damages: The First Wave of Climate Lawsuits." Ann Carlson moderated the discussion.

In 2019, John Dernbach, an expert on CJP's website, filed an amicus brief as part of a group of legal scholars supporting the plaintiffs in City of Oakland v BP.

The American Energy Institute President Jason Isaac advised judges attending Climate Judiciary Project events that they are entering a left-wing lobbying shop. Under the guise of "judicial education," CJP employs activist academics to provide a pro-plaintiff preview of climate change lawsuits, which highlights the political nature of these lawsuits as a left-wing attack on our quality of life.

"The Supreme Court will have an early next year opportunity to hear a case questioning whether blue states and left-leaning mayors, such as Brandon Johnson, can sue energy providers for climate change. We hope the court accepts the case and puts an end to Green New Deal lawfare."

Since its inception over five years ago, the project has created 13 curriculum modules and hosted 42 events, with over 1,700 judges taking part in its activities. Additionally, multiple judges serve as advisors at CJP, which may influence its curriculum and modules.

In the past five years, there has been a significant increase in lawsuits that accuse private companies of being financially responsible for damage to public infrastructure due to climate change, as stated by GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in a letter to Environmental Law Institute.

"The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) has launched a unique initiative to educate judges on climate science and its legal implications. However, it seems that ELI's primary objective in doing so may be to sway judges' decisions in favor of plaintiffs in climate change lawsuits."

The letter labeled Carlson as one of the program's architects and requested information to evaluate the efforts of both Ms. Carlson and ELI in influencing the federal judiciary's adjudication of climate litigation.

Cruz claimed that "ELI plans to achieve its extreme environmental goals through legal action rather than legislation."

"The Project created a "Climate Science and Law for Judges Curriculum" to assist judges in making "appropriate" decisions. However, ELI claims the Project is "neutral" and "objective," yet the Curriculum appears to be a guide for judges to rule in favor of plaintiffs in artificial climate change cases against traditional energy companies. The Curriculum includes courses that explain how climate science is based on established scientific disciplines and explores the human-caused component of global warming, such as the "causal connections between emissions" and "changes in the climate.""

The American Energy Institute's report from earlier this year claims that CJP conceals its partnership with the plaintiffs due to the knowledge that these connections pose ethical issues in the judiciary.

Sandra Nichols Thiam, an ELI vice president and director of judicial education, stated in a 2023 press statement that if there was any suspicion 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.

An ELI spokesperson stated to Planet Chronicle Digital that CJP does not engage in litigation, provide support or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or offer judges guidance on how they should rule in any case. Instead, ELI's courses offer judges access to evidence-based information about climate science and legal trends.

"Experts in the field are encouraged to provide their expertise to CJP programs while also providing it in another setting that is unrelated to the CJP program. Judges routinely participate in continuing education that exposes them to expertise in a wide variety of disciplines."

Planet Chronicle Digital’s Thomas Catenacci contributed to this report