Those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution accept a duty that is neither symbolic nor optional. It demands vigilance, impartiality, and the moral courage to defend the integrity of our judicial system against any effort to bend the law for political aims. That duty is being tested today by a coordinated campaign to influence judges and weaponize the courts against energy producers.
This challenge came into sharper focus after reporting revealed the Climate Judiciary Project, created by the Environmental Law Institute, is under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee. In a letter, the committee warned that CJP appeared to be “predisposing federal and state judges in favor of plaintiffs” in climate-related lawsuits. Such efforts undermine the Constitution’s guarantee of equal justice and threaten to turn the judiciary into a staging ground for ideological litigation rather than neutral adjudication.
Additional reporting this summer showed the lengths to which CJP has gone to conceal its activities. Although the group advertises “authoritative, objective, and trusted education” for judges, it recently anonymized the names of jurists who praised or participated in its programming. Last year, it abruptly locked down its yearslong national forum, and by July, it had removed information that previously identified judges involved in its network. A spokesperson claimed these steps were taken to “protect privacy,” but anyone committed to judicial integrity understands that such secrecy erodes public confidence in the courts.
Financial disclosures raise even more serious concerns. According to its 2024 financial statements, ELI received approximately 13% of its revenue from Environmental Protection Agency awards in 2023 and 8.4% of its revenue from EPA awards in 2024. These cooperative agreements, funding studies, and evaluations, dating back to 2017 and continuing through at least 2027, create the unacceptable appearance that taxpayer dollars are indirectly supporting efforts to influence judges who may later hear climate lawsuits. This is exactly the type of conflict the framers sought to prevent when they established an independent judiciary.
The consequences are not theoretical. Now-removed CJP forum posts included judges and CJP staff exchanging links to climate study, congratulating one another on environmental programming, and discussing recent climate cases remanded to state courts, all while encouraging further participation in CJP seminars and meet-ups. Such conduct violates the basic expectation that judges remain above advocacy networks and are insulated from partisan influence.
And yet, even with these behind-the-scenes efforts, activists have suffered decisive courtroom defeats. In 2025 alone, state-level climate lawsuits failed in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina, with courts affirming that regulating worldwide emissions lies beyond the power of any state judge. These rulings reaffirm a foundational truth: Policies addressing interstate or international emissions must be made by Congress and the EPA, not through a patchwork of state-filed climate cases.
Some policymakers have recognized the gravity of this threat. In February 2024, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) demanded information from ELI about CJP’s ties to academics supporting climate plaintiffs. This year, he again raised alarms in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, warning that CJP’s programs amount to a form of “judicial capture.”
This year, 23 state attorneys general, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin demanding an investigation into ELI’s funding, particularly its EPA grants, which the attorneys general warned were being used to “rig the courts” against American energy.
EDITORIAL: MIKE JOHNSON’S BIG ENERGY WINS
Now, following the Judiciary Committee’s decision to launch an investigation earlier this year, Congress must meet its duty with clear eyes and firm resolve. Safeguarding the judiciary from hidden influence, conflicts of interest, and ideologically driven conditioning is essential not only to the rule of law but to the functioning of key sectors of the U.S. economy.
Those who took an oath to defend the Constitution must act. The integrity of our courts and the trust of the American people depend on it.
Jason Chaffetz represented Utah’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2009 to 2017.
