Judges Get a Climate‑Science Showdown at Nashville

In the middle of a growing legal battle over climate damages, two very different programs are trying to shape how judges think about science. One group, linked to the fossil‑fuel industry and conservative free‑market advocates, is hosting a big symposium in Nashville. The other, called the Climate Judiciary Project, has faced criticism from lawmakers who say it is a covert effort to sway judges against oil companies. The Nashville event, run by George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, invites 150 judges to hear speakers who have written amicus briefs for oil firms and who argue that certain climate‑science tools should not be used in court. The program’s organizers claim they are simply teaching judges how to handle expert testimony and scientific evidence, but many of the speakers have ties to companies that could win climate lawsuits. Meanwhile, the Climate Judiciary Project has been accused of “bias” and “conspiracy. ” Conservative attorneys general have written to a congressional committee demanding documents that would prove the project is secretly working with climate‑law firms. They also question whether the project’s training materials were created by people who have a financial stake in climate litigation. Both programs come at a time when several lawsuits are asking courts to hold oil companies accountable for climate harm. In recent weeks, lawmakers in 11 states have introduced bills that would protect fossil‑fuel firms from liability. The federal government is also considering similar measures.The Nashville symposium was funded in part by ExxonMobil and other donors who support free‑market ideas. Its agenda includes sessions that challenge the reliability of climate science and argue that certain evidence should be excluded from cases. The event also features lawyers who have represented oil companies in high‑profile lawsuits. Critics say that the symposium is a form of “judicial education” that actually pushes judges toward a particular political viewpoint. They point to past fundraising letters that describe the program’s goal as “exposing judges to capitalism and limited government. ” The event is part of a larger effort by the university’s Law and Economics Center to create networks of judges who share similar economic philosophies. In contrast, the Climate Judiciary Project claims it simply wants to give judges a better understanding of how climate science works and why it matters in law. Its supporters argue that the project is a neutral educational resource, not an attempt to influence rulings. The debate over these two programs highlights how the courts are becoming battlegrounds for broader political battles about climate policy and the role of science in law. Judges, who are expected to be impartial, may find themselves caught between competing narratives about what counts as reliable evidence.