A new report by the American Energy Institute details the behind-the-scenes campaign by climate litigation supporters run through the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) to sway the perspectives of judges who may one day preside over lawsuits brought against American energy companies. 

The donor-funded program, called the Climate Judiciary Project, has already faced congressional scrutiny. In February, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) sent a letter a to ELI requesting information regarding CJP’s efforts “to influence the federal judiciary in its adjudication of climate litigation.”  

The probe into CJP was borne from an investigation into failed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration nominee Ann Carlson, who served on the ELI board while she was advising Sher Edling LLP, the top climate plaintiffs’ law firm. In her prior role as a UCLA professor, in addition to her work on ELI’s board, Carlson recruited new climate plaintiffs, helped fundraise for Sher Edling, and used an extracurricular slush fund to support these activities.  

It doesn’t stop there – the report shows that CJP is staffed and funded by the same academics and foundations that have propped up the climate litigation campaign for nearly a decade. Last week, the Wall Street Journal editorial board highlighted the blatant attempt by the project’s leaders to influence judges to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in climate lawsuits, writing:  

“As ELI director of ‘judicial education’ Sandra Nichols Thiam explained in 2022, the Climate Judiciary Project’s goal is the ‘development of a body of law that supports climate action.’ Translation: Use the judiciary to support or even impose climate policies that climate alarmists can’t enact through the political branches.” (emphasis added) 

This campaign by ELI should raise serious concerns about climate litigation proponents’ work to undermine the legitimacy of the American judiciary system through non-transparent and inappropriate overtures to federal judges. 

Origins of the Climate Judiciary Project 

According to the CJP website, the initiative started in 2018 and has hosted 44 events where more than 2,000 judges have received briefings.  

A 2021 Princeton Alumni Weekly profile of CJP founder Paul Hanle explained the impetus behind the effort: “Now [Hanle is] explaining the science of climate change to a group of people with real power to act on it: judges.”  

Some ideological judges even had a role in developing the project, possibly to influence their peers. Public records obtained by watchdog group Energy Policy Advocates revealed email correspondence in which a presentation attendee shared additional research with Hanle that “deals in part with issues that Judge Tatel” – a former D.C. Circuit Court Judge who contributed to CJP’s curriculum while he was still on the bench – “raised towards counteracting arguments from nonbelievers.”   

The idea for such a project may have been spurred on after U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the City of Oakland’s climate lawsuit against energy companies in June 2018, three months after he held a five-hour climate science “tutorial” featuring expert witnesses from both parties in the case. The outcome of that tutorial was clearly not the result litigation supporters had hoped for, likely prompting a more strategic and focused effort to “inform” judges ahead of potential cases.  

CJP’s close ties with plaintiffs’ attorneys and their supporters 

CJP goes to great lengths to maintain its false front of “neutral, objective information.” In 2023, ELI’s Director of Judicial Education Sandra Nichols Thiam explained why: 

“If we even appeared biased or if there was a whiff of bias, we wouldn’t be able to do what we’re doing.” 

But while CJP claims to provide judges with “neutral, objective information” on climate science, a review of the program’s current and former advisors are a “who’s who” of the academic apparatus supporting climate litigation, and, in some cases, directly advising the plaintiffs’ attorneys:  

• Former CJP curriculum advisor Ann Carlson acted as a formal consultant with Sher Edling. While she was a member of the ELI board, Carlson helped recruit new plaintiffs to climate lawsuits and fundraised for Sher Edling.  

• CJP expert Pat Parenteau, professor emeritus at Vermont Law, serves as an informal advisor to Sher Edling and even joined forces with the law firm to submit an RFP response for a potential PFAS lawsuit in Michigan. 

• CJP expert Douglas Kysar, a Yale Law professor, has made inflammatory and non-factual comments regarding climate lawsuits, including a statement to The Guardian where he said that the “diabolical” oil and natural gas industry “hoodwinked the entire government for the last few decades.” 

• CJP expert Jessica Wentz, a professor at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center, authored a paper alongside non-academic, activist co-authors including Delta Merner of the Union of Concerned Scientists in which she aimed to “identify areas for researchers who are interested in contributing to climate litigation.” Wentz identified CJP as one effort “working to fill the gap.”    

CJP’s curriculum materials are also clearly designed to present the plaintiffs’ own strategy to judges outside of the parameters of the courtroom. For example, the report notes that “three CJP curriculum modules endorse Richard Heede’s pro-plaintiff studies, including his ‘Carbon Majors,’ study, which is invariably described as ‘emblematic’ and ‘groundbreaking.’”  

Heede’s research – which is fundamental to the plaintiffs’ attempts to assign liability to different energy companies – was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and developed in partnership with the plaintiffs’ own lawyer, Vic Sher. These facts are not disclosed in the materials CJP presents to judges. 

CJP funded by wealthy, anti-energy donors 

The overlap between CJP and climate plaintiffs is no accident – the report’s review of nonprofit tax forms shows the program is funded by the Hewlett Foundation and the JBP Foundation, two of the same wealthy foundations that bankroll Sher Edling. 

Despite the shared donors’ clear preference for promoting the plaintiffs’ legal theories, the report points out that CJP does not voluntarily disclose its donors or their obvious biases:  

“Despite the obvious conflict created by these dual-funding streams, CJP does not disclose on its website or its materials that it is funded by entities who are also financially backing climate litigation. Given CJP’s billing as a trustworthy entity, it should be transparent about the sources of its funding with the public and the judges they target.” 

Tucked in between testimonials from judges that have participated in the program is a testimonial from the former president of the Hewlett Foundation – an original donor to both CJP and Sher Edling – stating, “with the growth in climate-related litigation, judges need this kind of education to be prepared to weigh scientific evidence and make better informed decisions.”  

Never mind the fact that the Hewlett Foundation itself has helped drive the recent growth in such litigation by directly paying the plaintiffs’ attorneys involved.  

Bottom Line: The Climate Judiciary Project allows the legal and academic supporters of climate litigation nearly unchecked access to the federal judiciary. However, a full understanding of the project’s funders and ties to plaintiffs’ attorneys remains unknown. Key questions need to be asked of CJP to understand the level of influence wealthy donors have amassed in the courtroom to pursue their ideological goal of taking down American energy companies.