A serious concern has been raised over the influence of environmental activists on judges who preside over climate-related lawsuits. First reported by an investigation, a network of activists has been quietly training these judges, hosting them at multi-day seminars in destinations such as Napa Valley, Palm Beach, and Honolulu.
The Climate Judiciary Project, a subsidiary of the Environmental Law Institute, has been running these seminars, which are branded as "Judicial Leaders in Climate Science". At these events, staff from the project present contested claims about climate and the environment as settled scientific fact. Judges who attend are not required to report the trips in their ethics disclosures.
The project's design has been likened to a "judicial Tupperware party", where attendees are asked to make a year-long commitment to the group's events and online classes, and to help identify and recruit other judges with influence over environmental law. The project's founder, Paul Hanle, a former Obama adviser, has written about his pleasure that nearly every target state has opted in to the project.
The project has partnered with established bodies such as the Federal Judicial Center, which allows its programming to pass as ordinary continuing education for judges. However, this partnership has raised concerns over the lack of transparency and potential bias. The Federal Judicial Center earlier this year pulled a chapter on climate science from its reference manual after more than two dozen Republican attorneys general noted that its authors had praised litigation as a tool against fossil fuels.
The documents obtained through an open records request show that the project's leaders have been strategizing about which judges to reach, with priority states including Florida, Maine, and Colorado. The travel and accommodation arrangements for these seminars can be lavish, with one judge, Ann Aiken, having her $645 stay at a Waikiki hotel covered by the project in 2020.
A spokesman for the project, Nick Collins, has said that the project's work simply helps generalist judges evaluate evidence and does not tell them how to rule. However, the fact that judges are not required to disclose their attendance at these seminars has raised concerns over the potential for bias and influence.