What Happened?

If you follow climate lawsuits, a House panel will examine Thursday, Nov. 19, how environmental activists may influence the federal judges who hear them. ​

The hearing, titled "A Climate of Bias: How Environmental Activists Influence the Judiciary," is scheduled before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet, according to a Legis1 review of the House committee calendar. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) chairs the panel. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is its ranking member.

The hearing follows an interim staff report House Judiciary Republicans released Sept. 30. The report, How Radical Environmental Special Interests Manipulate the Federal Judiciary, examines the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project.

Why Does it Matter to Me?

The hearing puts the question of outside influence on federal judges who hear climate lawsuits before a House panel. Climate litigation is also before the Supreme Court. The justices heard arguments Oct. 5 in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The case asks whether a Colorado climate-damages lawsuit against energy companies may proceed or is barred by federal law.

Both Sides, Now

The scrutiny rests on concerns that environmental groups' judicial education programs and other activities could improperly influence judges or compromise their impartiality. House Judiciary Republicans make that argument in their staff report. The hearing is a congressional oversight proceeding, not an executive action, and does not itself change any law.

Several documented events underpin those concerns:

  • Committee letters: On Jan. 14, the House Judiciary Committee sent letters stating that it was investigating allegations that ELI and its Climate Judiciary Project sought to influence federal judges.
  • Judges' manual: The Federal Judicial Center told The New York Times it omitted a climate-science chapter from a reference manual for federal judges following a Jan. 29 letter criticizing the material.
  • Staff report: The Sept. 30 report outlines the committee Republicans' concerns.

These developments document an investigation, a dispute over judicial reference materials and the committee's stated concerns. They do not establish that judges were biased or that the allegations have been proven. The report represents the findings and conclusions of Republican committee staff, not an independent judicial determination.

What Happens Next?

The next scheduled step is the Nov. 19 hearing before the subcommittee chaired by Issa. The proceeding is part of the House Judiciary Committee's examination of alleged outside influence on the federal judiciary, and the committee's Sept. 30 report is labeled interim.

---

AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article