The House Judiciary Committee has opened an investigation into whether a climate law group is improperly influencing federal judges on environment-related cases.
Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on Courts, sent four letters to varying judicial groups and lawyers asking for more information on communications with the Environmental Law Institute.
‘The Committee on the Judiciary is investigating allegations of improper attempts by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) to influence federal judges. Public reports have documented concerns around apparent efforts by ELI and CJP to influence judges who potentially may be presiding over lawsuits related to alleged climate change claims,’ the letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS) read.
‘These efforts appear to have the underlying goal of predisposing federal judges in favor of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the manufacturing, marketing, use, or sale of fossil-fuel products.’
Jordan and Issa argued that existing JCUS policy acknowledged risks of allowing privately funded education programs to distribute material to courts, but that its policy was also ‘leaving the door open for groups like ELI and CJP to exert influence through program content and contact between judges and those who litigate before them.’
A separate letter to David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, alleged that ‘evidence has emerged that raises questions about whether ELI, CJP, or one or more of its ‘experts’ coordinated with you on judicial training materials while you simultaneously litigated climate-related cases pending before federal courts.’
Jordan and Issa charged that Bookbinder had ‘pre-publication access and provided peer review’ for documents prepared for ELI while he was representing the Boulder County, Colo., Board of County Commissioners in a climate change-related lawsuit. They noted that he’s no longer the board’s lawyer, however.
‘In other words, this document seems to suggest that at the same time you were representing a private party in climate-related litigation, you were also helping to develop climate-related training materials for federal (and state) judges,’ the letter said.
A third letter to the Federal Judicial Center noted that while both climate groups say they provide impartial information for judges, Republicans believe those materials ‘appear to be designed to bias judges in climate-related cases.’
‘The materials that ELI and CJP used at judicial seminars are generally not made public, which itself is a cause for concern,’ the third letter said. ‘The limited portions of CJP’s ‘Climate Science and Law for Judges Curriculum’ that are publicly available seem designed to improperly influence judges in favor of plaintiffs.’
ELI is a nonprofit promoting climate science-based policy across academic, public, and legal spheres.
CJP is a project within ELI specifically aimed at creating curricula for ‘judicial education,’ according to its website.
Fox News Digital reached out to ELI and the four letter recipients for comment.