Climate advocacy influence under scrutiny intensifies as conservatives urge House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to subpoena records. They target the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project amid growing concerns about climate policy litigation.
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, sent a letter last week urging Jordan to investigate. He highlighted evidence from a September 12 court filing in the Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil case. Isaac claimed the filing showed “covert coordination and judicial manipulation,” which puts climate advocacy influence under scrutiny in courtrooms.
Isaac warned the court filing raises red flags about the credibility of science used in climate lawsuits. He also questioned the impartiality of judicial training programs tied to the Climate Judiciary Project.
The letter focused on one plaintiff’s lead attorney, Roger Worthington. According to the filing, Worthington had undisclosed involvement in at least two scientific studies. These studies serve as evidence in the case. Isaac noted one draft acknowledged funding from the Climate Judiciary Project, but the final version removed that disclosure.
Earlier drafts labeled “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE” appeared on Worthington’s law firm website. Isaac said the studies aim to “attribute global economic losses from climate change to specific oil companies.” The website also showed a pre-publication draft of a judicial training module with internal editorial comments.
Isaac stressed the involvement of a plaintiff’s attorney in these materials raises serious questions. He asked how and why Worthington had early access and possible editorial control over what is presented as “neutral” science.
Another training module aims to educate judges on “attribution science.” This field measures how much human-caused climate change impacts extreme weather events, according to scientific sources.
Isaac said, “The Environmental Law Institute claims neutrality, yet documents suggest coordination with plaintiffs’ lawyers.” He added, “If these lawyers shape studies and educate judges, that is manipulation, not justice.”
Isaac urged Jordan to subpoena “communications, draft documents, funding agreements, and editorial notes” related to these studies and the training curriculum.
While praising Jordan’s leadership, Isaac said, “Judges and the public deserve to know if climate advocacy influence under scrutiny affects courtrooms under the guise of neutrality.”
He also questioned the Environmental Law Institute and Worthington about their involvement, especially with the judicial education on attribution science. Isaac asked, “Does ELI regularly consult with plaintiffs’ attorneys on these modules?”
An Environmental Law Institute spokesman, Nick Collins, denied the claims. He said, “ELI did not fund the Nature study, and the Climate Judiciary Project has not coordinated with Mr. Worthington.”
Collins added, “CJP does not support litigation. It provides evidence-based education about climate science to judges. Our curriculum follows the highest scholarly standards.”
In response to concerns from Republican state attorneys general, Collins said CJP’s programs are not radical. “They provide voluntary, evidence-based training on legal and scientific topics.” Attempts to reach Jordan and Worthington for comment were unsuccessful.
For more political updates, visit DC Brief.
