Concerns are mounting over a growing effort to influence the judiciary through climate change litigation and training programs for judges. On Chicago’s Morning Answer, Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute and former Texas legislator, described the Climate Judiciary Project as a coordinated attempt to predispose judges in favor of lawsuits targeting the fossil fuel industry.
The project, run through the Environmental Law Institute, has reportedly hosted nearly 50 events since 2018, offering training and continuing education sessions to more than 2,000 judges. According to Isaac, those events create lasting relationships between activists and members of the judiciary, shaping attitudes before cases ever reach their courtrooms. He noted that judges who once openly affiliated with the project have recently scrubbed their names from public listings after investigative scrutiny.
Although several climate lawsuits against energy companies have been dismissed this year—including one in Charleston, South Carolina—more than two dozen remain active across the country. States and municipalities from Hawaii to Oregon are seeking damages against companies like Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute, sometimes in amounts larger than their annual state budgets. Isaac warned that even one adverse ruling could set a legal precedent leading to cascading judgments and higher energy costs nationwide.
The litigation strategy mirrors the approach used against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. Large plaintiffs’ firms, including San Francisco-based Sher Edling, are partnering with state attorneys general to advance cases pro bono, often backed by millions in donor funds. Isaac pointed to recent hearings led by Sen. Ted Cruz and new investigations in the House Judiciary Committee as evidence that lawmakers are beginning to push back.
Beyond private donations, taxpayer dollars may also be fueling the effort. The Environmental Law Institute has received federal grants from the Environmental Protection Agency, representing roughly 10–13% of its annual budget. Attorneys general in 23 states have called for the funding to end, citing conflicts of interest and the potential weaponization of the courts.
Meanwhile, the broader debate over climate and energy policy continues. Former Rep. Lee Zeldon has been moving to claw back billions in late-term Biden administration grants for green groups, while courts recently upheld the authority to rescind $20 billion in questionable awards. Isaac argued that these steps are needed to stop what he called “climate lawfare”—using the courts to enact policies that have failed legislatively.