An event directly linked to the oil industry is instructing 150 judges on “Healthy Skepticism” of climate science in Nashville, Tennessee, while a coordinated campaign successfully pushed for the retraction of a climate-science chapter from the Federal Judicial Center’s technical manual for judges. These parallel efforts serve to protect fossil fuel companies from accountability as significant lawsuits seeking climate damages move through the courts, demonstrating the direct influence of capital on the state's judicial apparatus.
Capital's Judicial Offensive
The program, run by the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, aims to educate judges by prioritizing “American business interests” and questioning established climate science. This symposium for judges is closely aligned with the fossil fuel industry and free-market conservatives.
The Law and Economics Center at George Mason University, which oversees the program, is funded in part by ExxonMobil, a corporation that is a defendant in several climate lawsuits. An internal fundraising document from 2020, obtained by ProPublica, reveals that these gatherings are often “luxurious all-expenses-paid affairs” designed to foster lasting relationships and networking opportunities with judges.
The document included a solicitation for over $930,000 sent by the center to the Charles Koch Foundation, a libertarian organization known for providing grants to universities and scholars. The stated goal of the symposium, according to the document, is to sway judges toward a “libertarian economic viewpoint” in their rulings.
It aims to expose judges to “the intellectual history of the role of capitalism, economic freedom, and a constitutionally limited government as fundamental features of a liberal society.” The document also explicitly states the goal is to establish a community of like-minded justices “with synergistic effects on the judiciary as a whole” and to influence the outcome of cases that come before the courts.
DonorsTrust, a dark money pass-through organization, is listed among the Law and Economics Center’s 2025 funders. DonorsTrust is often used by organizations tied to conservative activist Leonard Leo, who brought George Mason a $20 million gift, in addition to $10 million from the Charles Koch Foundation, enabling the law school’s program expansion.
The conference includes speakers who have filed amicus briefs in favor of the oil industry in climate cases, as well as at least one lawyer who has represented fossil fuel companies in court. Reading assignments prepared for the judges include a Substack post by a climate contrarian and a law journal argument that a key tenet of climate science used to identify the cause of disasters should be inadmissible in court.
One session, titled “Debates on the trustworthiness of tools to evaluate science in the courtroom,” focuses entirely on the federal courts’ reference manual, which previously contained the retracted climate chapter. Philip Goldberg, special counsel to the National Association of Manufacturers’ policy lobbying arm, the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), is prominently featured. MAP describes itself as “the leading voice of manufacturers in the courts” and has publicly rejected claims in landmark cases against oil companies.
Goldberg authored a brief for MAP submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024 on a case brought by the city of Honolulu against Shell, ExxonMobil, and other oil companies. He also authored briefs in climate liability cases brought by the city of Baltimore and Boulder County. Matthew Wickersham of Alston & Bird, counsel for Chevron in several lawsuits, features in the final session. The only reading assigned for that session is a paper Wickersham wrote in 2025 arguing that attribution science should never be admitted in court.
The State as Enforcer of Corporate Interests
The Federal Judicial Center, the publishing body for the federal court system, retracted the climate chapter in February, despite it having been peer reviewed and approved by the center and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. This retraction followed a campaign last winter to remove the chapter.
Twenty-two Republican attorneys general wrote to Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, demanding an investigation into the chapter’s publication, alleging bias from authors linked to Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Environmental Law Institute. Rep. Jim Jordan issued letters 4 days ago, on April 28, accusing Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center, the Environmental Law Institute, and law firm Sher Edling of bias, conspiracy, and collusion.
Jordan demanded private communications, receipts, and funding records, alleging they were “producing materials to be used to bias federal judges” and coordinating to bring climate-related litigation to court. Congressional investigators are escalating a formal inquiry into the Climate Judiciary Project, a program meant to educate courts about climate science. The Florida attorney general’s office launched an investigation last week into alleged judicial influence by the Environmental Law Institute. In the past three weeks, similar liability waiver bills have been introduced federally in both the House and the Senate, aiming to shield fossil fuel companies from climate harm liability.
Resistance and Its Suppression
The Climate Judiciary Project, overseen by the Environmental Law Institute, aims to educate courts about climate science. A representative stated the project “does not participate in litigation, coordinate with any parties related to any litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule.” The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University authored the retracted climate chapter. The law firm Sher Edling represents several climate plaintiffs in significant lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate damages.
These lawsuits include cases brought by the city of Honolulu, the city of Baltimore (which was won by defendants in March), Boulder County, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The oil companies dispute the allegations in these ongoing cases. The George Mason conference did not offer readings from the retracted climate chapter, which remains available on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine website, nor from United Nations climate science authorities or other peer-reviewed scientific journals.