Climate justice group has deep ties to judges, experts involved in litigation amid claims of impartiality
While the Environmental Law Institute Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) has publicly denied any involvement in climate change litigation, a recent investigation by Fox News Digital has revealed numerous connections between the organization and judges and experts deeply engaged in such cases. Despite claims to the contrary, it seems that CJP is closely tied to individuals actively participating in climate change litigation.
The CJP, established by the Environmental Law Institute in 2018, aims to provide judges with information on climate change litigation. However, it appears that several key figures associated with the project have direct involvement in these cases. Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer, for example, has filed numerous amicus briefs in climate-related litigation across multiple states. Similarly, Robin Kundis Craig, a professor at the University of Utah’s Law School, has contributed to the CJP curriculum and filed amicus briefs in court cases.
Furthermore, judges like Justice Mark Recktenwald of the Hawaii Supreme Court have been actively engaged with CJP events and presentations. In 2023, Recktenwald denied an appeal from oil companies in a Honolulu climate misinformation suit, highlighting the potential impact of individuals associated with CJP on legal decisions.
Other experts connected to CJP, such as Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, have also filed amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs in climate cases. This network of individuals with ties to both CJP and climate litigation raises questions about the organization’s true objectives and potential influence on legal outcomes.
Critics, including American Energy Institute President Jason Isaac, have raised concerns about CJP’s activities, accusing the organization of using activist academics to promote a specific agenda in climate change lawsuits. The secretive nature of CJP’s operations and its efforts to influence judges through judicial education have been called into question, with some labeling the project as an attack on the rule of law.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case on climate change litigation, the role of organizations like CJP in shaping legal decisions is likely to come under further scrutiny. The connections between CJP, judges, and experts involved in climate litigation raise important ethical and transparency concerns that cannot be ignored. It remains to be seen how these revelations will impact the ongoing debate over the role of the judiciary in addressing climate change issues.
