For months, conservative politicians and strategists have attacked the scientists and attorneys involved in the Climate Judiciary Project—an initiative aimed at informing judges about climate science—claiming it amounts to a scheme to sway federal judges into issuing rulings against the oil sector. Now, even as lawmakers intensify a congressional probe into the project, a parallel effort backed by the fossil fuel industry and free-market conservatives is convening a symposium for 150 judges in Nashville, Tennessee. The program, operated by the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, seeks to train judges as well, but with an emphasis on advancing American business priorities and casting doubt on climate science. These competing initiatives are unfolding amid several major lawsuits progressing through the courts that aim to make fossil fuel companies liable for climate-related damages, alongside a sharp rise in oil industry-backed assaults on climate policies and their underlying legal justifications. ProPublica revealed in April that political operatives linked to conservative activist Leonard Leo were orchestrating a campaign in 11 states to enact legislation protecting fossil fuel firms from accountability for climate damage. Over the last three weeks, comparable liability waiver bills have been proposed at the federal level in both the House and the Senate. Last week, the Florida attorney general’s office initiated an investigation into claims of judicial influence by the Environmental Law Institute—the nonpartisan legal research organization behind the Climate Judiciary Project, which was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency until recently. This follows a winter campaign urging the Federal Judicial Center, the federal court system’s publishing arm, to remove a nearly 90-page chapter on climate science from the newest edition of its judges’ technical manual. Twenty-two Republican attorneys general sent a letter to Rep. Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is demanding that the committee probe the center’s publication of material on evaluating scientific evidence about climate and weather, claiming bias among the chapter’s authors. In their letter, they pointed out that the authors are affiliated with Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and claimed the chapter was shaped by Michael Burger, the center’s executive director, who collaborates closely with the law firm Sher Edling, representing multiple climate plaintiffs. The Republican attorneys general also pointed out that certain staff members at the Sabin Center collaborate with the Environmental Law Institute and the Climate Judiciary Project.
