The American Energy Institute (AEI), a group advocating for American energy, has issued a scathing report accusing the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) of corrupting the judicial system by promoting climate change alarmism. The report, titled “The Climate Judiciary Project: An Attack on the Rule of Law,” claims that CJP, which has trained over 2,000 state and federal judges, is not a neutral entity as it portrays itself. Instead, AEI alleges, CJP is deceptively pushing questionable climate science and is closely aligned with plaintiffs suing energy companies.
The report highlights that CJP is a partner to over two dozen public plaintiffs currently pursuing lawsuits against energy providers, aiming to hold them liable for climate change-related damages. This includes the high-profile case of the city of Honolulu, which sued major fossil fuel companies like Exxon and Chevron. This case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court after the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, a decision that, according to AEI, was influenced by the CJP’s training program.
The AEI report criticizes the CJP’s training materials, calling them “pro-plaintiff messaging” with “rigged made-for-litigation ‘studies.’” It also accuses the CJP of concealing its ties to the plaintiffs and leveraging its influence on judges to advance a pre-determined agenda.
The Environmental Law Institute (ELI), the organization behind the CJP, strongly refutes AEI’s claims. A spokesperson for ELI, Nick Collins, called the report “full of misinformation.” He emphasized that the CJP is a non-partisan educational initiative designed to provide judges with evidence-based scientific information related to climate change litigation. Collins stressed that CJP does not take stances on individual cases or advocate for specific outcomes.
The controversy surrounding the CJP highlights the growing tension between environmental activists and the energy industry in the context of climate change litigation. The AEI report portrays the CJP as a tool for manipulating the judiciary to favor environmental activism, while the ELI maintains that the CJP is simply providing judges with necessary knowledge to handle complex climate change cases. The debate raises crucial questions about the role of judicial training programs in influencing legal outcomes and ensuring fair and impartial justice.
