As cities and states escalate their legal assault on fossil fuel companies, seeking billions in damages for allegedly concealing climate risks, a parallel battle is unfolding in the shadows of judicial education. Fossil fuel interests are funding seminars that place industry-friendly speakers in front of federal judges, a strategy that mirrors and inverts accusations from the right wing that environmental lawyers are biasing the bench.
The irony cuts deep. Republican lawmakers have spent three years attacking the Environmental Law Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit that educates judges on climate science and its legal implications. They claim ELI is conducting "improper attempts" to sway the judiciary. But court documents and funding records reveal a starkly different picture: oil-backed organizations are the ones systematically courting judges through expensive seminars, guest lecturers, and institutional support.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright stands at the center of this influence operation. Before joining the Biden administration, Wright ran Liberty Energy, a fracking services firm. In that role, he addressed private judicial seminars at least three times, speaking directly to federal judges about climate matters. One of those appearances happened in June 2024, just three months after Liberty Energy sued the Securities and Exchange Commission to challenge climate disclosure rules. His remarks included what one fellow presenter called "skepticism about how bad global warming will be."
These seminars operate under the umbrella of the Law and Economics Center's Judicial Education Project, housed at George Mason University's law school. The center has accepted substantial funding from ExxonMobil, the Charles Koch Foundation, and other entities deeply invested in climate litigation outcomes. In a bid to court philanthropic support, center officials told the Charles Koch Foundation that they provide judges with "healthy skepticism of the invocations of 'science' that lurk in the background of lawsuits they are hearing."
The stakes, according to climate accountability experts, could not be higher. If judges absorb the message that climate science is questionable or that these cases are inherently political, they become less likely to rule against fossil fuel defendants. One climate investigator noted that the goal appears to be creating an atmosphere where judges view such litigation with caution or suspicion, ultimately dampening accountability efforts in court.
When confronted, defenders of the effort pivot. Sher Edling, the law firm bringing many of these climate suits on behalf of municipalities and states, has documented the financial ties that bind the center to defendants. In a letter to Congress, the firm's attorney pointed out that the Law and Economics Center's connections to oil companies "pale in relation" to claims that environmental lawyers are biasing judges. The center's board has included executives from BP and Shell, and currently seats a lawyer who represents BP in three climate cases.
The House Judiciary Committee, led by Republicans, has launched a formal investigation into ELI, subpoenaing records and demanding documents about its judicial education work. But the inquiry has yet to examine the fossil fuel-backed seminars with comparable intensity, despite records showing direct industry involvement in shaping what judges learn about climate science.
Recent revelations underscore the pattern. Phil Goldberg, a lawyer whose board representation ties him to five defendants in climate accountability suits, recently spoke at a Law and Economics Center symposium. His law firm represents Murphy Oil in one of those cases. The center also pursued funding from a hedge fund billionaire whose investment portfolio includes stakes in three major climate lawsuit defendants.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has sounded the alarm, characterizing the arrangement as fossil fuel interests manufacturing a "false version of climate science" through ostensibly educational platforms. The distinction matters: judges are entitled to learn about climate issues fairly, but not from industry operatives posing as educators, experts argue.
Wright, the Law and Economics Center, and the Department of Energy declined to respond to inquiries about the speaking engagements and their timing relative to litigation and regulatory action.
Author James Rodriguez: "This isn't subtle influence peddling, it's a calculated strategy to stack the deck before judges rule on whether oil companies owe billions for climate deception."
Comments