Watchdog Group Seeks Financial Records Behind Climate Training for Judges

Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO), a nonprofit watchdog organization, has launched a new investigation into who funds climate presentations for federal judges, filing Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover potential financial connections between environmental advocacy groups and judicial education programs.

The FOIA requests, reviewed by Fox News Digital, target emails and financial records held by the Treasury Department that could reveal whether funds from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) were channeled through the Federal Judicial Center Foundation, a congressionally created 501(c)(1) organization authorized to accept donations for judicial education events.

This investigation comes amid growing scrutiny from Republican lawmakers and legal critics who question whether these climate seminars exposed judges to one-sided presentations from figures connected to climate litigation networks. Critics are concerned these programs may have created an appearance of partiality for judges who could later preside over related lawsuits against major energy companies.

Chris Horner, legal counsel for GAO, told Fox News Digital that the FOIA requests represent a significant breakthrough in their investigation, providing a new path to explore the role of the Federal Judicial Center—a research arm of the taxpayer-funded judicial branch—in hosting these seminars.

“Judges are getting from the courtroom to the resort. How does that happen?” Horner questioned, seeking to understand if the Federal Judicial Center improperly used ELI funding to facilitate judges’ attendance at these controversial seminars.

ELI’s tax records, including 990 forms beginning in 2019, show multimillion-dollar sums designated partly for educating judges. GAO aims to understand the financial mechanisms behind this funding.

The climate-related judicial education programs in question involved collaboration between the Federal Judicial Center and ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project, launched in 2018 to provide judges with instruction on climate science, impacts, and related litigation. The Federal Judicial Center previously told Fox News Digital it held a series of small, one-day seminars with ELI for fewer than 100 judges in 2019 and early 2020, before halting collaboration with ELI amid mounting criticism.

Nick Collins, an ELI spokesperson, defended the Climate Judiciary Project in a statement, saying it began because courts were seeking education on climate topics. He emphasized that the project “does not participate in litigation, coordinate with parties related to any litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule on any issue or in any case.”

However, critics point to ELI’s connections to plaintiffs who have brought numerous lawsuits against major oil companies like Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil. The organization has ties to litigators involved in climate cases, including through former board member Ann Carlson.

“The judiciary has been caught in bed with the plaintiffs, and the judiciary apparently wants to hide the evidence rather than be transparent about it, which certainly does not inspire confidence,” Horner said.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) alleged in a 2024 letter that ELI “intends to accomplish via the courts what it cannot get enacted into law: a radical environmental agenda.”

While the Climate Judiciary Project maintains it is a “neutral, objective” resource for judges, critics argue its curriculum has been consistently fossil fuel-averse. The concern centers on whether judges are being influenced by parties connected to the same network advancing climate lawsuits.

In January, the House Judiciary Committee raised concerns that ELI appeared to target judges in jurisdictions where climate cases would likely be heard. The committee noted ELI’s acknowledgment that its Climate Judiciary Project began in 2018 “in coordination with” the Federal Judicial Center.

GAO’s FOIA requests suggest the Federal Judicial Center Foundation could be a critical link in understanding who paid for these seminars and how a taxpayer-funded judicial entity became involved with privately funded programs—potentially contradicting policies U.S. courts are required to follow.

As the investigation unfolds, it highlights broader questions about judicial impartiality and the appropriate boundaries between educational programming and advocacy in sensitive areas of litigation where billions of dollars and major policy outcomes hang in the balance.