A new report from the American Energy Institute (AEI) says that the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) is “falsely portraying itself” as being unbiased while teaching judges about “climate science.”
The Environmental Law Institute runs the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). Its goal is to “teach judges about climate science” and how “climate change affects the law.” The program covers topics such as what causes climate change, its effects, and its legal issues. As climate change cases appear more frequently in courts, the CJP claims to help judges “understand these issues’ science and legal aspects.”
The AEI report claims that CJP works with over two dozen groups suing energy companies for climate change damages. Jason Isaac from the American Energy Institute says the CJP gives judges biased opinions and guides them “in a certain direction.” He said it’s like “influencing referees before a game.”
Nick Collins, a spokesperson for the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), claims the CJP aims to help judges nationwide “understand” climate change cases. He explains that judges must learn about new science and legal issues as more climate-related lawsuits occur. He said the Environmental Law Institute is working with top organizations to give judges the “knowledge they need” to handle these cases.
However, the AEI says that the educational materials used by the CJP are created by people who support the plaintiffs in climate change lawsuits. These materials often have a one-sided view and include studies designed to support the plaintiffs’ claims.
The AEI believes that this program unfairly influences judges and is funded by groups backing climate change cases. They argue that CJP hides its connections to these plaintiffs, which could mislead judges. The report suggests that state authorities should ensure public resources aren’t used in a way that undermines the fairness and trust in the legal system.
Recently, there have been lawsuits against big oil companies, like Exxon and Chevron, accusing them of causing climate change damage by not warning people about the risks of their products. One of these cases is now being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2020, the city of Honolulu sued these companies, saying their products contribute to global warming. The oil companies argued that only federal law should decide how energy policies are set, not individual states.
The court decided to proceed with the case against the oil companies so that it would go to trial. The companies tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided to hear the case in June.
Meanwhile, Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Mark E. Recktenwald revealed he had spoken at a Climate Judiciary Project course to help judges “learn how to deal with climate change cases.”
The CJP teaches judges about climate science and its impact on the law. It starts by explaining the basics of climate science, like how scientists study climate change and the role of greenhouse gases in warming the planet. It also looks at how climate change affects communities and the financial and environmental problems it causes. The program covers how scientists identify human-caused climate changes.
The second part of the program focuses on how climate science is used in legal cases. It reviews major climate-related court decisions in the U.S. and shows how courts use climate science to judge government rules and decisions. It also looks at how climate change “impacts fundamental rights.”
However, the AEI argues that the CJP influences judges in cases like the one in Hawaii and is funded by people supporting climate change lawsuits. They think this is unfair and not in line with democratic principles.
According to the AEI report, the Climate Judiciary Project receives money from activist groups that fund the law firm Sher Edling LLP, which is handling the Hawaii climate lawsuit. The U.S. Judicial Conference has warned that some seminars might unfairly influence judges.
AEI claims the Climate Judiciary Project hides its connections to the plaintiffs, creating ethical concerns. They believe the project is designed to look unbiased but helps climate activists influence judges. AEI argues that this is a serious issue because it undermines the fairness of the legal system.
The CJP is proof that liberal indoctrination doesn’t end after school or college. It’s a disgusting look at how bold the left has become and just how much the legal system is weaponized.
But this isn’t news to conservatives. Donald Trump’s sham trials have already provided all the proof they ever needed that the law is the last thing the left cares about.
