A House Judiciary Committee interim staff report says the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project targeted judges likely to hear climate cases, lacked a formal conflict-of-interest policy and involved lawyers connected to climate litigation, allegations the organization strongly denies.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
A House Judiciary Committee investigation has concluded that a program providing climate-science education to judges sought to influence how courts approach climate litigation, citing internal communications, testimony and ties between curriculum contributors and attorneys involved in lawsuits against energy companies.
The Sept. 30 interim staff report focuses on the Environmental Law Institute, or ELI, and its Climate Judiciary Project, which was established in 2018 to educate judges about climate science and its application in legal disputes.
The committee said its investigation, launched in August 2025, involved review of more than 15,000 pages of documents and testimony from people involved with the project. The report alleges that CJP deliberately sought participation from judges in regions expected to see climate-related litigation and that at least 140 federal judges have attended its training sessions.
ELI disputes the committee’s conclusions and says its program provides voluntary, evidence-based scientific education rather than advocacy.
CJP describes its mission as providing judges with “authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.” ELI says the growing number of climate cases requires judges, who often lack scientific backgrounds, to understand technical evidence they may encounter in court.
The committee report takes a sharply different view.
It alleges that CJP’s seminars are structured to predispose judges toward accepting scientific and legal arguments that could benefit plaintiffs suing fossil-fuel companies over alleged climate-related damages.
The investigation found that CJP selected seminar locations partly by considering areas “where climate impacts would be significant” and where organizers expected an increase in climate-related litigation. Founder Paul Hanle told investigators that the program was intended to provide judges with “context and tools” for evaluating evidence in those cases.
The committee interpreted internal communications from Hanle as evidence that the project sought to affect litigation outcomes.
According to the report, Hanle wrote in private communications about persuading judges to accept aspects of climate science and said the program could “make a great difference in the final outcome of cases.”
ELI rejects the committee’s characterization of those statements and maintains that educating judges about widely accepted climate science is different from directing them how to rule.
The report also examined how judges were recruited for CJP programs.
Hanle told congressional investigators that the Federal Judicial Center was responsible for inviting judges to some training sessions, according to the report. Internal communications reviewed by investigators, however, showed CJP officials also discussing efforts to attract particular judges and jurisdictions.
One June 2019 exchange involved Hanle and Michael Gerrard, founder of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, concerning participation in a seminar and what the committee described as “back-channel efforts” to encourage a Supreme Court justice to attend.
Hanle told investigators in July that he could not remember what the phrase referred to, according to the report.
Another focus of the investigation was CJP’s process for addressing potential conflicts of interest.
The committee said CJP does not maintain a formal conflict-of-interest policy specifically preventing curriculum authors or seminar presenters from simultaneously participating in climate litigation that could come before judges attending its programs.
Instead, the project relies on internal reviews by senior personnel to assess presenters and potential conflicts.
“Although CJP states that it selects curriculum authors, presenters, and Advisory Committee members based on expertise, professional standing, objectivity, and presentation skills, the entity does not evaluate or disclose participants’ affiliations with climate litigants, advocacy organizations, or ongoing climate litigation,” the committee report said.
The report also points to connections between the judicial education program and attorneys involved in lawsuits against oil and gas companies.
Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center, has contributed to discussions surrounding CJP and also serves as of counsel to Sher Edling, a law firm representing governments pursuing climate-related lawsuits against energy companies.
Congressional investigators separately focused on communications involving scientist Michael Wehner and attorney Roger Worthington.
According to the committee, Wehner, a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist and CJP contributor, shared a prepublication version of a judicial training module with Worthington in June 2023.
The module dealt with climate attribution science — methods used to evaluate links among greenhouse-gas emissions, climate change and particular weather events or resulting damages.
Worthington is lead counsel for Multnomah County, Oregon, in litigation against fossil-fuel companies seeking billions of dollars in damages connected to a deadly 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave.
The county alleges that energy companies contributed to climate change and resulting extreme heat while misleading consumers about the effects of fossil fuels. The defendants dispute those allegations.
The committee criticized Worthington’s access to the unpublished training material because his litigation involves many of the same scientific questions addressed in the curriculum.
“In other words, a lawyer with an active dispute before the federal courts had prepublication access to a training module that is meant to influence judges about the very subject matter at issue in his case,” the report said.
Worthington has also previously been involved with climate research relevant to litigation and has provided funding for studies cited in climate-related legal disputes.
Multnomah County’s lawsuit is seeking more than $50 billion in damages and other relief over the 2021 heat wave, which was associated with more than 100 deaths across the region.
The committee report also raised concerns about broader climate-science materials made available to the federal judiciary.
Its investigation noted that the Federal Judicial Center and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine included a climate-science chapter in the fourth edition of their Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence published in late 2025.
Twenty-seven state attorneys general challenged the chapter’s objectivity in January, and the Federal Judicial Center removed it the following month while citing concerns involving neutrality and transparency, according to the committee report.
The committee concluded that CJP’s activities risk compromising the appearance of judicial neutrality by exposing judges outside the courtroom to information developed partly by people associated with climate advocacy or litigation.
“The importance of impartial judicial proceedings is to ensure the outcomes of cases are determined by facts and evidence, not bias or opinion,” the report said.
The committee further alleged that ELI and CJP were attempting to influence judges “outside the courtroom and away from public eyes.” Those conclusions are findings and characterizations by the Republican-led committee, not judicial determinations that ELI or CJP violated ethics rules or improperly influenced the outcome of a specific case.
ELI strongly rejected the report, saying congressional investigators selectively interpreted documents and repeated allegations that the organization maintains are unsupported.
“The report issued by the Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee recycles the same unsupported allegations about the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and our Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) that have circulated for more than three years,” the organization said.
“CJP provides evidence-based judicial education about climate science, impacts, and solutions, and how they arise in the law,” ELI said. “CJP does not tell judges how to rule in any case or on any issue, nor are its programs designed to achieve a particular outcome.”
ELI acknowledges that it accepts the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is largely driven by human activity, but argues that teaching judges those conclusions does not constitute political advocacy.
“Informing judges about science is not the same as telling judges how to apply the law or how to rule in a particular case,” the organization said.
ELI said it has cooperated with the congressional investigation and provided thousands of pages of material while maintaining that its curriculum is designed to help judges independently assess scientific evidence presented by litigants.
The disagreement therefore centers less on whether judges need scientific education than on who should provide it, how potential conflicts should be disclosed and whether educational programs addressing disputed issues in active litigation can remain sufficiently separate from organizations and attorneys pursuing those cases.
The Judiciary Committee said its oversight will continue as lawmakers consider possible reforms intended to protect judicial impartiality and govern outside educational programs available to federal judges.
Original article
Comments