Op-Ed: Buying the Bench - The Climate Judiciary Project
Sometimes, history doesn’t repeat itself, it just changes costumes.
That’s exactly what we’re witnessing in the recent Fox News exposé of the Climate Judiciary Project, a modern replay of the 2009 Climategate scandal.
But this time, the focus isn’t on academic gatekeeping; it’s on the quiet ideological capture of the judiciary itself.
Let’s start with the basics. The CJP, launched by the Environmental Law Institute in 2018, touts itself as a neutral, educational resource for judges who will handle climate-related litigation.
In reality, what’s been exposed is a covert system for socializing judges to one side of the debate: activist-funded “education” with a specific agenda.
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas nailed it when he described the program as “paying the players to play and paying the umpire to call the shots the way you want.”
A core piece of this scheme is the creation of a “listserv” — a closed email group for judges and climate activists, rolled out in September 2022.
This group, “Judicial Leaders in Climate Science,” had at least 29 members, including sitting judges, and facilitated private exchanges about climate cases, litigation strategies, and activist victories.
The chummy atmosphere was on full display when judges congratulated each other for organizing activist events and privately shared videos about “bankrupting the fuel industry” — with explicit warnings to keep the content under wraps.
CJP and ELI claim their mission is the objective education of judges about climate science. But let’s be frank: Their curriculum — “Climate Science 101” and “Climate Litigation 101” — is just the latest vehicle for consensus enforcement, not open inquiry.
The people “educating” the judiciary are often the same experts filing amicus briefs in activist-driven climate lawsuits. That’s not neutrality; that’s advocacy masquerading as information.
And it’s all justified under the label of “fact-based” and “science-first,” drawing on consensus reports and “robust peer review” — a line we heard all through the Climategate affair, even as evidence of manipulation and bias became undeniable.
The result: Judges are primed to see one side as truth, and all dissent as denial.
Echoes of Climategate
The parallels to Climategate are almost uncanny:
The CJP network is Climategate 2.0: Instead of “hiding the decline,” it’s “guiding the bench.”
The unease is real, even among some in the judiciary. A 2019 episode saw a federal judge chastised for circulating an invite to a climate seminar — colleagues saw it as a possible ethics violation. And yet, the trend has only accelerated.
Judicial ethics require impartiality, but these so-called educational sessions function as climate policy pep rallies behind closed doors. As Heritage Foundation fellow Zack Smith observed, when judges are “trained” on issues they will later rule on, the system is inviting partiality and bias.
Meanwhile, the CJP’s efforts have ramped up just as climate litigation against oil companies and the federal government has exploded — timing that is unlikely to be a coincidence. The playbook is clear: Train the judges, bankroll the lawsuits, and stack the deck in the courtroom.
Let’s call this what it is: Not judicial education, but judicial purchase. It’s an effort to buy not just the narrative in academia or the press, but the very people rendering legal judgments on climate issues.
In the wake of Climategate, we saw how data and peer review could be manipulated to enforce orthodoxy. Now, the manipulation targets the judiciary itself.
The incentives are plain: By monopolizing the flow of “approved” climate information, activists can pre-bias courts to support litigation aimed at reshaping U.S. energy and regulatory policy.
And the real-world consequences are immense. Judicial rulings influenced by this one-sided training can lead to massive damages, increased regulation, and economic impacts on millions of people — all justified as “saving the planet,” with no meaningful debate allowed on the uncertainties or risks of overreach.
CJP’s leadership insists they don’t “advise judges on how to rule in any case.” But when the curriculum and training are deeply intertwined with the same individuals advancing climate lawsuits, the line between education and advocacy vanishes.
The true aim is to ensure that, whatever the case, the judge’s mindset is already aligned with activist goals before the trial ever begins.
Climategate taught us that only sunlight — full transparency — can disinfect these closed networks. Judicial capture by stealth is still judicial capture, and the longer it operates in the shadows, the more damage it can do to both science and the rule of law.
In short: This is not about impartiality, it’s about buying the outcome.
If we want to defend the integrity of our courts and scientific debate, we must expose these tactics and demand genuine, open discussion — not indoctrination behind closed doors.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.