Concerns Over Climate Justice Project’s Influence on Judiciary
It seems the Climate Justice Project (CJP) has been taking steps to influence American judges on climate issues, a move that raises eyebrows. This initiative is backed by the Environmental Law Institute, which is focusing on what they call “training” judges in climate matters. Some names of participating judges have even been scrubbed from CJP’s website, suggesting a desire for discretion amidst unearthed connections.
What’s troubling is the potential one-sidedness of this training. I mean, if judges have previous ties to the CJP’s curriculum, how can we expect objectivity? When you dig a little deeper, it appears that the organization has attempted to cloak its advocacy as neutral education. They’ve gathered significant funding to run seminars and boot camps, impacting at least 2,000 judges. This doesn’t seem like a random outreach; it feels like a well-planned infiltration of the judiciary with a specific agenda.
And there’s a touch of hypocrisy here, too. While there are calls from the left for increased transparency among Supreme Court justices, the louder silence about the CJP’s influence on state judges raises a few questions. These state judges often have limited terms or are elected, making them more susceptible to potential activist grooming. Related discussions have surfaced online, revealing exchanges between judges and CJP officials that seem to celebrate coordinated efforts while discussing lawsuits. It feels more like preparation for legislation against the energy sector than genuine education.
Take, for instance, Indiana’s Judge Stephen Schiele, who once appeared on the CJP’s testimonial page but now claims he has little memory of substantial communication. This revisionist narrative is, frankly, bewildering. The CJP’s own materials are heavily loaded with advocacy—treating some controversial science as established fact while dismissing opposing views as imaginary.
This situation raises a pressing concern: how can we trust judges who may have spent significant time learning activist climate doctrine? There should be mandatory disclosures regarding any training these judges receive. If a powerful plaintiff is aiming to take down energy companies, shouldn’t the records reflect any ideological training those judges have undergone?
Let’s not pretend this is standard procedure. It’s quite troubling how, when federal associations hold legal meetings, there are often calls for judicial prohibitions and ethical investigations. Yet, when the Environmental Law Institute collaborates with the Federal Judicial Center to conduct sympathetic climate training, it’s framed as objectivity. The Wall Street Journal aptly noted this double standard, which feels unsettling.
A call to action is essential here. Immediate measures should be taken to end any collaboration between the Federal Judicial Center and the Climate Justice Project, along with a thorough review of all external partnerships. Those who see the need for reform in the judiciary must pay attention to the underlying ethical crises brewing in state and federal courts. Taxpayer-funded facilities should not be utilized for ideological training sessions. If the integrity of the judiciary matters to you, it’s time to raise your voice.
While the CJP may be embarrassed by its tactics being exposed, it continues its work, which threatens the integrity of our courts. Those involved—attorneys, lawmakers, and advocates—must remain vigilant. It’s crucial to combat this influence with transparency and accountability. Otherwise, we risk losing our courts’ independence and, ultimately, the public trust.
