Report: How radical environmental special interests manipulate the federal judiciary
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee has released an interim staff report titled, "How Radical Environmental Special Interests Manipulate the Federal Judiciary."
The report reveals how the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), a left-wing environmental activist group that pushes for greater regulation of American industries, and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) target judges whom they believe may be likely to hear disputes surrounding climate change with one-sided judicial training seminars intended to influence the outcome of litigation. This targeted influence campaign undermines the American tradition of unbiased neutrality by predisposing federal and state judges in favor of plaintiffs bringing novel lawsuits against American energy producers.
Since August 2025, the Committee and its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet have been conducting oversight of ELI's attempts to bias federal judges through its judicial "educational" programs. To date, the Committee and Subcommittee have received and reviewed more than 15,000 pages of documents and compelled day-long testimony from key players in ELI's initiative.
The Committee's and Subcommittee's oversight has highlighted the scope of radical environmentalists' efforts to indoctrinate and bias judges, including:
CJP intentionally invites judges who have a likelihood of presiding over climate cases to participate in its biased environmental law education programs. These judges are from regions where CJP anticipates a growing volume of climate-related cases. When a climate event occurs, such as a drought or wildfire, oftentimes plaintiffs bring legal claims in an attempt to recoup damages caused by the climate event.
When selecting a location for a judicial "education" seminar, CJP looks for areas "where climate impacts would be significant" because it expects an increase in cases in those areas;
Under the guise of providing neutral educational information about climate science, CJP presents seminars that are designed to predispose judges to rule in favor of radical environmentalists. In private emails to aligned academics, CJP's founder bragged about its success in persuading judges to accept unsettled matters of climate science as fact and even admitted that CJP's efforts could "make a great difference in the final outcome of cases." CJP documents make clear that it seeks to influence litigation outcomes because "real government action [on climate change] might still be derived from court decisions";
Documents show that CJP lacks a formal conflict-of-interest policy to ensure that authors and presenters at its seminars are not also participating in active climate litigation before the judges in attendance. Instead, CJP relies on internal reviews conducted by its founder and senior staff to assess the neutrality of potential presenters and identify potential conflicts;
Evidence indicates that one CJP contributor coordinated with an environmental special interest attorney while the attorney represented Multnomah County, Oregon, in its $50 billion lawsuit against energy producers.
Dr. Michael Wehner, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a contributor to CJP, shared with this attorney a nonpublic CJP judicial training document explaining how attribution science can be used to connect greenhouse gas emissions to specific weather events, localized impacts, and resulting economic or human harms. In other words, a lawyer with an active dispute before the federal courts had prepublication access to a training module that was meant to influence judges about the very subject matter at issue in his case.
America's judicial system is based on the premise of fair proceedings before a neutral arbiter. However, from documents and testimony available to the Committee and Subcommittee, it appears that ELI and CJP are working to influence federal judges outside the courtroom and away from public eyes. Their judicial "education" seminars seek to bias federal and state judges about disputed issues in climate-change science, such as attribution and causation. By biasing judges that these issues are "settled" science, ELI and CJP stacks the deck against some litigants before they even enter the courtroom. The Committee and Subcommittee will continue to conduct oversight to inform legislative reforms to better protect the integrity of the judiciary and judicial proceedings.
••• Publisher's note: A free press is critical to having well-informed voters and citizens. While some news organizations opt for paid websites or costly paywalls, The Highland County Press has maintained a free newspaper and website for the last 27 years for our community. If you would like to contribute to this service – and want it to continue – it would be greatly appreciated. Donations may be made to: The Highland County Press, P.O. Box 849, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133. Please include "for website" on the memo line.
Comment
Of course...
...they aren't the same. Contrails are composed primarily of water vapor with carbon soot, carbon monoxide, nano particles and other noxious gases. Chem trails on the other hand are composed of - what? Unicorn flatulence?
The air temp at 30,000 feet is about -50 F. Look at the exhaust of anything burning hydrocarbons when it's down around 0 F, cars, trucks, fuel oil furnaces, gas water heaters. All of them have plumes of frozen water vapor.
naive
You are totally uniformed. Only a fraction of the air that enters the engine is taken in by the turbine engine. This air is mixed with jet fuel (essentially kerosene), combusted, and then exits the engine under very high pressure and high temperature. Condensation formation requires a decrease in ambient air pressure to form, but the output of the turbine is under very high pressure which prohibits the formation of condensation trails. Physics proves, under the right conditions, condensation can form when air is cooled BUT, the exhaust of the turbine engine driving the high-bypass turbofan is very hot and remains hot for a considerable distance behind a jet, condensation formation is prohibited. (Hot air holds much more water without producing condensation.) Burning fossil fuels produces black carbon soot, not water. Furthermore, the ratio of air-to-fuel used in high-bypass turbofan engines is as high as possible (much air but relatively little fuel) so as to keep engines efficient and cost-effective, so the reduced amount of fuel in this ratio results in a lack of water in the exhaust, and this is yet another reason high-bypass jet turbofans cannot produce condensation trails. The more efficient the engine, the less fuel it uses per unit of air moved, and this renders high-bypass turbofans virtually incapable of producing condensation trails, unless they use water injection, which is extremely rare.Therefore, every condition necessary for contrail formation is absent in a high-bypass turbofan engine. Intentionally deceptive disinformation programs are using fabricated science to claim that high-bypass turbofans create contrails to appease the gullible. BTW, these persistent trails propagating into perpetually grayish skies has been sampled and analyzed, by certified flying test labs, to have nearly identical chemical properties as coal fly ash. Go outside tonight (ANY night), shine a flashlight upwards to see what your body is saturated with. It ain't ice crystals! Denial will not save you.
Last time I checked....
...my highschool chemistry book burning kerosene has two major products, carbon monoxide and water. The soot is pure carbon and there are probably a few other trace elements.
Little known fact - every gallon of jet fuel burned creates approximately one gallon of water.
Chemtrails are Not Contrails: Radiometric Evidence
journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/476