A government watchdog has opened a new line of inquiry into who paid for climate training given to judges, seeking Treasury and foundation records that could reveal whether outside groups steered judicial education. The focus is on donations and financial trails tied to the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project and the Federal Judicial Center Foundation. That probe raises questions about whether publicly funded judicial education was influenced by private money and whether judges were exposed to one-sided presentations. The outcome could change how judicial training is funded and inspected.
The nonpartisan-sounding watchdog, Government Accountability & Oversight, filed Freedom of Information Act requests for Treasury-held account information and internal correspondence tied to seminars on climate science and litigation. The group insists those records could show whether money connected to the Environmental Law Institute moved through the Federal Judicial Center Foundation. If so, critics say the taxpayer-funded judicial research arm might have let private interests shape educational programming for sitting judges.
Republicans and legal critics have long argued that the seminars presented judges with a narrow view aligned with plaintiffs in climate lawsuits, potentially creating an appearance of bias. The seminars in question were tied to ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project, launched in 2018 to teach judges about climate science, impacts and litigation. The Federal Judicial Center has acknowledged running small, one-day sessions with ELI in 2019 and early 2020 but has said it stopped working with ELI in 2020.
GAO legal counsel Chris Horner framed the FOIA effort as a way to pull back the curtain on how privately funded events intersected with a public institution. He pointed to the Federal Judicial Center Foundation, a private entity created by Congress that is authorized to accept donor money, as a possible channel for donations. Horner argues the foundation’s accounts should be public because donors could have been underwriting judge education that appears to favor one side in major litigation.
Public filings reviewed by critics showed sizable sums designated to educate judges, and GAO wants to map the mechanics behind those transfers. Horner put the question bluntly: “Judges are getting from the courtroom to the resort. How does that happen?” That line captures the concern that travel, lodging and event arrangements might be funded in ways that obscure who influenced the educational content.
ELI has defended its project as a neutral resource for judges who requested training on an important topic, saying the curriculum is like other judicial education on science and law. In its response, ELI maintained: “[The Climate Judiciary Project] partners with leading educational institutions to provide those courses which are no different than other judicial education programs providing training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend.” The group also asserted: “CJP 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.”
GAO’s FOIA letters treat the Federal Judicial Center Foundation as holding a Treasury account where donations could have been deposited and spent, and GAO is asking for statements that would show deposits and disbursements. The requests cover multiple years, including potential Treasury-held data back to 2015, and focus on the 2019–2021 window linked to the seminars. GAO lawyers argued the data are in the public interest because they could reveal how outside money was handled by a public-facing institution.
The watchdog did not claim the requests proved any illegal behavior, but it said the records could clarify relationships and funding paths that have been opaque. Horner described the inquiry as opening a “big gap in the stone wall,” one that could reveal longstanding financial ties between the Federal Judicial Center and private entities active in climate litigation. That language underscores how watchdogs see the FOIA requests as a rare chance to see internal flows that have been hidden from public view.
Critics have noted ELI’s connections to litigators suing major oil companies and suggested the Climate Judiciary Project could be part of a wider litigation ecosystem. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, expressed that anger in a 2024 letter, alleging that ELI “intends to accomplish via the courts what it cannot get enacted into law: a radical environmental agenda,” a charge that frames the seminars as strategic rather than purely educational. Those concerns feed Republican oversight efforts to check whether judicial education is being used to tilt outcomes in favor of one interest group.
GAO lawyers quoted in their FOIA filings were explicit about the stakes, saying the seminars were arranged by parties with ties to plaintiffs yet presented as neutral background for judges. “These seminars were arranged by parties affiliated with the plaintiffs’ legal team yet presented as the objective background which judges should know about climate science,” the GAO lawyers wrote in the FOIA requests. They added, “The Federal Judicial Center Foundation is authorized to accept gifts to underwrite such seminars.”
Congressional investigators have joined the scrutiny, examining whether ELI targeted judges in jurisdictions likely to hear climate cases and whether the Federal Judicial Center coordinated with the group. House investigators pointed out that the Climate Judiciary Project began in 2018 “in coordination with” the Federal Judicial Center, a detail that prompts questions about the boundaries between public judicial education and private sponsorship. Lawmakers say understanding who paid for what matters to maintaining judicial impartiality and public trust.
The FOIA push represents a Republican-led effort to force transparency where critics believe there has been evasion, and it could produce bank records and emails that reveal donors, vendors and event details. If the Treasury-held accounts or foundation statements show direct underwriting of judge travel or programming by advocacy groups, that will feed calls for stricter rules on outside funding of judicial education. The watchdog and Congress say their goal is straightforward: make the funding path visible so the public can judge whether the courts were influenced.
As the records request moves forward, FOIA outcomes will determine whether the debate stays theoretical or becomes document-driven. If Treasury or foundation records disclose specific transfers, that evidence could reshape oversight and force new limits on how judges are offered continuing education. For now, the fight is over paperwork and principles, and the watchdogs want the ledger opened so voters and lawmakers can see who was paying to shape judicial learning.
