Conservative Groups Host Climate-Skeptic Judges Symposium Amid Legal Battles Over Fossil Fuel Liability

Conservative Symposium for Judges Challenges Climate Science Education

For months, conservative lawmakers and political operatives have accused the scientists and lawyers behind the Climate Judiciary Project—a program designed to educate federal judges about climate science—of conspiring to influence judicial rulings against the oil industry. Now, as congressional investigators escalate a formal inquiry into the project, a rival program with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry and free-market conservatives is hosting a symposium for 150 judges in Nashville, Tennessee.

The competing efforts unfold amid a surge in lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate damages, alongside intensified attacks on climate policies and their legal foundations. The dueling programs highlight a growing ideological divide over how judges should interpret climate science in courtrooms.

Fossil Fuel-Aligned Program Promotes Business Interests Over Climate Science

The Nashville symposium is organized by the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, a program that shares the Climate Judiciary Project’s goal of educating judges but prioritizes American business interests while questioning the scientific consensus on climate change. The event underscores the broader battle over judicial education on climate-related issues.

Conservative Campaigns Target Climate Science in Courts

ProPublica reported in April that political operatives linked to conservative activist Leonard Leo were coordinating a push across 11 states to pass laws shielding fossil fuel companies from liability for climate harm. In the past three weeks, similar liability waiver bills have been introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate.

Last week, the Florida Attorney General’s office launched an investigation into alleged judicial influence by the Environmental Law Institute, the nonpartisan group overseeing the Climate Judiciary Project. The institute, historically funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, has faced escalating scrutiny.

Federal Retraction of Climate Science Chapter Sparks Controversy

In February, the Federal Judicial Center—the publishing body for the federal court system—retracted a 90-page chapter on climate science from its latest judges’ technical manual after 22 Republican attorneys general demanded an investigation. The chapter, authored by experts from Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, had been peer-reviewed and approved by both the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

The Republican attorneys general, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), claimed the chapter was biased. Their letter to Jordan cited the authors’ affiliations with the Sabin Center and alleged influence by Michael Burger, the center’s executive director, who also works with the law firm Sher Edling. Sher Edling represents plaintiffs in climate lawsuits.

The attorneys general further noted that some Sabin Center staff collaborate with the Environmental Law Institute and the Climate Judiciary Project. Despite the chapter’s rigorous review process, the Federal Judicial Center complied with the demand and removed it in February.

Jordan Escalates Accusations of Bias and Collusion

On April 28, Jordan issued letters accusing Burger, the Environmental Law Institute, and Sher Edling of bias, conspiracy, and collusion. He demanded the production of private communications, receipts, funding records, and required interviews with the accused parties.

Clash Over Judicial Education Reflects Broader Legal and Political Divide

The conflict over climate science education for judges mirrors a wider struggle between conservative groups pushing for skepticism of climate science and legal advocates seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable. As lawsuits advance and legislative efforts to limit liability gain momentum, the battle over judicial interpretation of climate science is intensifying.