Chief Justice John Roberts has long warned of threats to judicial independence, citing violence, intimidation, disinformation, and defiance of court orders. Now, a fifth threat has emerged: the calculated infiltration of the judicial system to shape case outcomes.
After tobacco litigation yielded massive settlements, trial lawyers turned to climate change as a lucrative new frontier. With the U.S. oil and gas industry pulling in roughly $1.3 trillion annually, the potential for profit was clear. More than 3,300 climate-related lawsuits later, activist allies concluded that the most effective way to persuade judges to blame fossil fuel companies for complex weather phenomena was to "educate" them.
The Environmental Law Institute's Climate Judiciary Project has been running seminars for judges, boasting that its mission is to build "a network of judges and scientists advancing climate science education for the judiciary." These sessions are attended by judges who may preside over cases where plaintiffs allege harm from fossil fuel production or use. Such "education" raises serious questions about judicial bias.
Since 2018, over 2,000 judges have participated, though their names and testimonials were anonymized or removed once conflict-of-interest concerns surfaced. At least two judges who oversaw climate cases were publicly linked to the institute's events. Moreover, the project received funding from groups that also contribute millions to Sher Edling, the law firm bringing many of these lawsuits.
Another attempt to influence judicial thinking appeared in the Federal Judicial Center's Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which for the first time included a chapter on climate science. The Wall Street Journal called it "a sweeping brief intended to influence judges to think every harm from climate change is the result of fossil fuels," accusing political actors of hijacking judicial education to serve plaintiffs' interests. Textual analysis suggests one such actor is Michael Burger, who serves as executive director of Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and is also of counsel at Sher Edling.
The chapter was removed from the online version in February after 27 Republican state attorneys general protested. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine followed suit in early August, announcing a review of its processes three weeks after President Trump called for federal scrutiny of the academy's conduct.
Infiltration isn't the only problem; some judges are openly letting personal feelings influence their rulings. In cases involving Trump, judges have made inflammatory statements that undermine their impartiality. For instance, U.S. District Judge William Young quoted Shakespeare and his own wife in calling Trump a tyrant. Such rhetoric suggests a personal mission rather than objective jurisprudence.
More troubling, some federal district judges have defied Supreme Court orders. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, "Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court's decisions, but they are never free to defy them." This defiance, coupled with biased behavior, erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
To restore trust, judges must demonstrate fairness, showing they haven't prejudged cases. Roberts has urged the nation to "publicize the risks and take all appropriate measures to stop them." One reform would be to include lay members in judicial conduct reviews, as Arizona does, rather than leaving complaints solely to other judges.
Public accountability can reinforce private trust. Judges who inject personal views into decisions should be forced to answer for their conduct. As recent controversies over judicial independence show, the stakes are high. The integrity of the courts depends on impartiality, and any perception of bias—whether from activist infiltration or personal animus—threatens that foundation.
