by Kevin Killough
A House Judiciary Committee investigation into the Environmental Policy Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project confirms critics’ claims that the group’s judicial training provides activist-driven materials aimed at biasing judges overseeing climate litigation cases.
The Environmental Policy Institute established the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) in 2018 to provide “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.”
Critics have long contended that the CJP’s curriculum provides a one-sided view of climate science that’s favorable to plaintiffs in the dozens of climate lawsuits filed across the country, and it’s functioning as an activist-driven effort to bias judges overseeing those cases.
While the Environmental Policy Institute (ELI) has denied the CJP trainings are biased, the House Judiciary Committee began investigating the organization in August 2025. On Wednesday, the committee released a report that found the CJP is attempting to influence the outcomes of climate litigation in favor of plaintiffs claiming damages suffered as a result of global warming they allege is caused by petroleum companies.
The report alleges that the CJP intentionally invites judges who have a likelihood of presiding over climate cases, presents seminars that aim to “predispose judges to rule in favor of radical environmentalists,” lacks effective policies to avoid conflicts of interest, and coordinates with attorneys directly involved in climate litigation on the side of the plaintiffs.
Targeting judges
Among the findings in the report is that the CJP’s founder, Paul Hanle, claimed in interviews with the committee that the Federal Judiciary Center was charged with inviting judges to the project’s training.
However, internal documents show that the CJP’s leadership communicated with individuals and organizations who supported climate litigation and even discussed ways to use “back-channel efforts” to target states and key judges for the project’s seminars.
Hanle was asked about a June 2019 email that he sent to Michael Gerrard, founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, which advocates for climate litigation against oil companies as a means to achieve what it calls “climate justice.” Hanle asked Gerrard to do a presentation at a seminar the following month and discussed “back-channel efforts” to have a Supreme Court justice attend the seminar.
When the committee interviewed Hanle about the email in July of this year, he said he couldn’t recall what the “back-channel effort” referred to.
The report also found that Hanle had bragged to academics about the success of CJP to persuade judges to accept unsettled matters of climate science, such as the link between carbon dioxide emissions and extreme weather, and even admitted that CJP’s advocacy would “make a great difference in the final outcome of cases.”
ELI responds
A spokesperson for the ELI said in a statement to Just the News that the organization “strongly” disagrees with the report’s claims and mischaracterizations.
“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 statement reads. “After cooperating with the Committee by providing thousands of pages of documents, the facts remain clear about who we are and what we do: CJP provides evidence-based judicial education about climate science, impacts, and solutions, and how they arise in the law. 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. We are proud of our work supporting an independent judiciary and remain focused on our mission.”
The ELI published a full statement on its website responding to the committee’s report.
Coordinating with climate lawyers
The documents the committee obtained in the course of its investigation found that the CJP lacks any formal process to ensure that authors and presenters at its seminars are not participating in active climate litigation or have another conflict of interest.
The CJP, according to the report, relies on internal reviews that are conducted by Hanle and senior staff to assess the neutrality of presenters.
“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 report states.
The report details coordination with Michael Burger, who serves as executive director of the pro-litigation Sabin Center and is Of Counsel with Sher Edling, a firm that specializes in suing oil companies for allegedly causing damages stemming from climate change.
A CJP contributor, according to the report, also shared a prepublication CJP module with Roger Worthington, who is lead counsel for Oregon’s Multnomah County, which is suing energy companies for $51 billion, alleging they contributed to a 2021 heat wave that caused over 100 deaths.
“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 states.
Worthington has also been involved with climate research that supports climate litigation, including providing funding for studies that could be favorable to plaintiffs in climate cases.
Undermining judicial system, report warns
The report concludes that the ELI and CJP are attempting to undermine the impartiality of judges “by falsely claiming to present federal and state judges with unbiased information about climate science during their judicial training seminars.”
The CJP curriculum, according to the report, presents a biased legal and scientific framework to advance climate litigation, and the report details that its materials are developed by climate activists dedicated to advancing anti-fossil fuel climate policies through litigation against oil companies.
“The importance of impartial judicial proceedings is to ensure the outcomes of cases are determined by facts and evidence, not bias or opinion. ELI’s and CJP’s work to corrupt such an essential judicial tool endangers the foundation of the U.S. judicial system,” the report warns.
– – –
Kevin Killough is a reporter for Just the News.
