As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a major climate case that could raise energy prices across the U.S., a libertarian legal organization held a virtual roundtable Wednesday discussing an environmental law organization whose ties to China have drawn scrutiny from Congress and national security groups.
The Environmental Law Institute is a U.S.-based nonprofit research and education organization founded in 1969 that later expanded its work internationally, promoting environmental law and helping governments and institutions develop environmental legal frameworks. Alongside its U.S. domestic work at both the state and federal levels, ELI has worked in nearly 100 countries around the world, with dedicated stand-alone programs for a few countries including China and India. Though its China Program webpage does not indicate that the program has ended, ELI has said publicly several times, including in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, that its China programming concluded in 2024.
During Wednesday’s Federalist Society roundtable, critics of the institute reiterated concerns that have also prompted congressional scrutiny, including a hearing and an ongoing House Judiciary Committee investigation. They allege that the Chinese government has exerted outsized influence within the U.S.-based institute, using it as a vehicle to shape U.S. climate litigation in ways that undermine American energy independence.
One of those critics is Michael Lucci, founder and CEO of State Armor, an organization founded to develop state solutions to global security threats in the U.S. State Armor published a 39-page report on the institute in July that explains how it has worked with China over the years.
“For nearly three decades, ELI has maintained a deeply entrenched operational footprint within China,” the report reads.
It goes on to describe how the institute’s China program has involved partnerships with Chinese NGOs, judges and environmental regulators.
“A close examination reveals an extensive network of partnerships with institutions directly linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), its intelligence apparatus, and its military-industrial complex,” the report continues.
Because Chinese law allows state intelligence agencies to access information held by private organizations, however, and requires not only their cooperation but their secrecy, the report argues that such partnerships are particularly vulnerable to CCP influence or infiltration within the U.S.
Lucci pointed Wednesday to an earlier example of what he described as Chinese security services infiltrating a Western-backed organization.
“In 1986, George Soros started a China fund in China. In 1989, he pulled out because he said Chinese security services took over his whole operation,” Lucci said, noting that China’s surveillance and influence capabilities have only grown more sophisticated since.
Lucci said China seeks to co-opt foreign NGOs operating in the country, exerting influence over their activities and working to extend its influence abroad.
“The more pernicious part that we’re concerned about is then they leverage those relationships to sort of impute some of their kind of poisonous ideology and some of their radical theories back into the United States,” Lucci said.
Lucci and others particularly are concerned about two developments in the U.S.: the institute’s Climate Judiciary Project and the body of climate litigation they believe is being used to shackle American energy production.
The Climate Judiciary Project was launched in 2018 to influence judges on climate science and law, providing background they can draw on when deciding environmental and climate cases. The project has developed a climate science and law curriculum for judges, in addition to hosting seminars and advocacy events.
“ELI insists that CJP ‘does not participate in litigation, support or coordinate with any parties related to any litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule,” State Armor’s report reads.
But, it continues, “CJP materials expressly call for judicial activism and legal ‘adaptation,’ and teach judges how to ‘frame’ climate change discussions and influence colleagues who may be ‘opposed’ to action on climate change."”
The roundtable’s speakers talked about what they described as conflicts of interest at work in some of the climate lawsuits that have been brought, where lawyers arguing the cases have written some of the “neutral educational materials” that the CJP helps provide to judges.
For instance, Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, coauthored research on climate-change attribution that has been used as supplemental reading in CJP programs for judges. Burger also represents plaintiffs in climate litigation, meaning that at times, judges may be using CJP materials to guide them in cases involving attorneys who contributed to those materials.
Michael Toth, executive director of the Civitas Institute, sees that overlap as a problem that needs to be addressed.
“I mean, imagine if you went to court and the judge is flipping through a manual to decide huge issues in the case that’s written by one side in the case,” Toth said. “You’ve never had a chance to review it in advance. You’ve never had a chance to comment on it.”
Chad Mizelle, senior fellow for law and justice at the America First Policy Institute, also believes other potential conflicts of interest could be at play when it comes to Big Law.
Some prestigious law firms, including Arnold & Porter, Latham & Watkins and WilmerHale, are member organizations of the Environmental Law Institute, paying dues to the organization and at times, hosting ELI events. Some partners at these firms also sit on ELI’s board.
These large firms regularly represent major energy companies in environmental and climate litigation. But Sher Edling, a plaintiffs’ firm at the heart of dozens of climate cases across the country, has also previously been advised on a case by at least one member of the institute’s board. Some of these firms have represented energy company defendants in climate litigation brought by Sher Edling.
“[The firms or partners] are lending their personal prestige to an organization that is intentionally developing these novel theories in order to sue and undermine American energy, while at the same time defending these very companies that are being sued,” Mizelle said. “When the defense firms have a hand in helping craft the lawsuits that they are then getting paid tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to defend against, you start to say, OK… We seem to be in a cycle that is primarily aimed at enriching those I think in the United States who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.”
Roundtable participants argue that the institute’s judicial education program and its influence on climate litigation advance Chinese interests by constraining American energy production while increasing U.S. reliance on energy technologies and supply chains dominated by China.
“Roundtable participants argue that the climate litigation ultimately advances Chinese interests by constraining American energy production while increasing U.S. reliance on energy technologies and supply chains dominated by China.
“We have to look at the PRC interest in this. Their military has published thousands of research papers relevant to taking down America’s electrical grid. Over 200 of them are specifically about how to attack America’s electrical grid, and a key way to do that is to get their stuff into our electrical grid. This lawfare drives on onto their technologies,” Lucci said.
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County on Oct. 5, the first day of the court’s 2026-27 term. The case centers on whether state and local governments can use state law to sue nationwide energy companies for alleged harms from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, or whether federal law bars those claims. If the Supreme Court allows the case to continue and jurors rule against energy companies, critics warn that potential financial damage awards could bankrupt the companies and cause energy prices to soar.
