The House Judiciary Committee, led by Reps. Jim Jordan and Darrell Issa, has opened an inquiry into whether the Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project improperly sought to influence federal judges in climate-related cases. Lawmakers sent four letters requesting documents from the Judicial Conference, the Federal Judicial Center, David Bookbinder, and others. Republicans say seminar materials and private contacts could bias judges in favor of plaintiffs in fossil-fuel litigation and raised concerns about a lack of transparency.
House GOP Opens Inquiry Into Alleged Climate-Group Effort To Influence Federal Judges
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the subcommittee on courts, are probing a climate group's alleged attempt to influence federal judges.
The House Judiciary Committee has launched a formal inquiry into whether the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) improperly sought to influence federal judges in environment-related cases.
Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chair of the committee's Courts subcommittee, sent four letters requesting documents and communications from the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS), the Federal Judicial Center, David Bookbinder of the Environmental Integrity Project, and other recipients named in the letters.
Allegations and Concerns
In its letter to the JCUS, the committee said it is "investigating allegations of improper attempts by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) to influence federal judges." Republican members contend public reporting raises concerns that ELI and CJP programs may have been designed to shape the views of judges who could preside over climate-related lawsuits.
"These efforts appear to have the underlying goal of predisposing federal judges in favor of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the manufacturing, marketing, use, or sale of fossil-fuel products," the committee wrote.
Jordan and Issa argued that while JCUS policies acknowledge the risks of privately funded judicial education, those policies may still allow outside groups to influence judges through program content and direct contact with the judiciary.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, looks on during a hearing with the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Sept. 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Questions About David Bookbinder
A separate letter to David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, states that "evidence has emerged that raises questions about whether ELI, CJP, or one or more of its 'experts' coordinated with you on judicial training materials while you simultaneously litigated climate-related cases pending before federal courts." The committee alleges Bookbinder had "pre-publication access and provided peer review" for materials prepared for ELI while he represented the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners in climate litigation. The letter notes he is no longer representing the board.
Transparency And Curriculum Concerns
The committee also sent a letter to the Federal Judicial Center expressing concern that materials used by ELI and CJP at judicial seminars are generally not publicly available. Republicans say the limited portions of CJP's publicly available "Climate Science and Law for Judges Curriculum" appear aimed at influencing judges in favor of plaintiffs in fossil-fuel litigation.
ELI is a nonprofit organization that promotes climate science-based policy across academic, public, and legal spheres. CJP is a project within ELI that develops curricula and judicial-education programs for judges.
The committee has requested documents and information as part of its inquiry. Fox News Digital reported that requests for comment were sent to ELI and the recipients of the four letters.
Help us improve.
