House Judiciary chair pressed to subpoena climate group amid probe into climate litigation influence

A conservative climate policy group is urging House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to subpoena records from the Environmental Law Institute's Climate Judiciary Project as part of an ongoing probe into the influence of climate advocacy groups in climate policy litigation.

Jason Isaac, chief executive of the American Energy Institute, sent a letter to Jordan last week citing a Sept. 12 filing in Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil et al. that he says points to covert coordination and possible manipulation of judicial outcomes. The letter highlights that one of the plaintiffs’ lead attorneys, Roger Worthington, had undisclosed involvement in at least two scientific studies presented to the county as independent, peer-reviewed evidence. Draft versions of one study reportedly acknowledged funding from the Climate Judiciary Project, but that disclosure was removed in the final publication; earlier drafts labeled DO NOT DISTRIBUTE were found on Worthington’s law firm website.

According to Isaac’s letter, the study aims to attribute global economic losses from climate change to specific oil companies. The letter also notes a pre-publication draft of a Climate Judiciary Project judicial training module with internal editorial comments. Isaac argues that this markup raises questions about how a plaintiffs’ attorney could have early access to, and possibly editorial influence over, materials presented to judges as neutral science. The Environmental Law Institute has said the Climate Judiciary Project does not participate in or provide support for litigation and that its curriculum is evidence-based and peer reviewed, designed to educate judges about climate science and its relevance to the law.

The American Energy Institute has said the inquiries are part of a broader effort to ensure that judicial education materials remain neutral and free from outside influence. Isaac is asking Jordan to formally request communications, draft documents, funding agreements, and internal editorial notes related to the scientific studies and the CJP curriculum. He says the public and the judiciary deserve transparency about whether the materials shaping courtroom understanding of climate science are being coordinated with plaintiffs’ counsel who stand to benefit from litigation outcomes. In response, Environmental Law Institute spokesman Nick Collins told Fox News Digital that the Climate Judiciary Project does not fund or coordinate with Worthington and that the program provides neutral, fact-based education to judges with a rigorous peer review process. Collins also noted that several Republican state attorneys general recently pressed the EPA to pause funding to the Environmental Law Institute, a call that the agency has not acted on.

In a related development, 23 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter last month to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin urging cancellation of funding to the Environmental Law Institute. The push underscores how the current inquiry is part of broader Republican concerns about the influence of climate advocacy in government policy and litigation. Fox News Digital has reached out to Jordan and Worthington for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

As the probe unfolds, the parties involved stress that the issue centers on transparency and the integrity of judicial education materials used in climate-related cases. Critics say the situation warrants careful scrutiny of funding, disclosure practices, and editorial involvement that could influence risk assessment and liability determinations in climate litigation. Proponents of closer oversight argue that ensuring independence between advocacy groups and educational content inside the judiciary is essential to maintaining public trust in the legal process.