New Manual Update Ignites Swift Backlash (Image Credits: Unsplash)
The Federal Judicial Center withdrew a comprehensive chapter on climate science from its key reference manual for U.S. judges shortly after Republican attorneys general raised concerns about potential bias.
New Manual Update Ignites Swift Backlash
On December 31, 2025, the Federal Judicial Center released the first major revision in 15 years of its “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” a 1,682-page resource relied upon by federal judges and law clerks.
This peer-reviewed guide, developed in partnership with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, covered topics from artificial intelligence to epidemiology. A new section exceeding 90 pages focused on climate science, outlining terminology, scientific consensus, and methods for attributing weather events to global warming. The chapter drew from reports by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change while noting areas of uncertainty.
Republican Leaders Challenge Judicial Neutrality
More than 20 Republican state attorneys general, including West Virginia’s John McCuskey, sent a letter on February 2, 2026, to congressional judiciary committees. They described the manual as “tainted by biased authors, reviewers, and sources involved in ongoing litigation” and an attempt to influence court outcomes.
The next day, the Federalist Society hosted a panel discussion where critics argued the climate inclusion advanced an ideological agenda. West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams stated that the chapter assumed “certain bodies of evidence are automatically more credible than others” and treated litigated questions as resolved. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan received calls to investigate related programs by the Environmental Law Institute.
Judicial Center Acts Quickly to Omit Content
Judge Robin Rosenberg, director of the Federal Judicial Center – an agency chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts – responded decisively. On February 6, 2026, she informed McCuskey that the center had removed the entire climate science section from the manual.
The updated version without the chapter appeared on the center’s website, while the National Academies retained the original full edition online. This move came amid a surge in climate-related lawsuits, including two cases before the Supreme Court seeking accountability from oil and gas companies for emissions-linked damages.
Clashing Views on Science and Impartiality
Defenders of the original chapter rejected claims of slant. Jessica Wentz, one of the authors affiliated with Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, called the objections a “bad-faith critique that is ultimately aimed at repressing scientific information.” She emphasized her lack of involvement in climate litigation and argued that suppressing such details introduced bias.
Critics pointed to author connections, such as thanks to Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center and counsel at a firm representing climate plaintiffs. The dispute highlighted tensions in federal courts, where judges increasingly face technical questions on weather attribution and emissions impacts.
| Perspective | Main Argument |
|---|---|
| Republican AGs | Biased sources risk rigging outcomes in active cases |
| Chapter Authors | Consensus science aids neutral decision-making |
Key Takeaways
- The manual update marked the first in 15 years but lasted only days with its climate content.
- Over 20 GOP attorneys general drove the pressure through letters and public events.
- Federal judges now proceed without this official guidance amid rising climate litigation.
This episode underscores the judiciary’s challenge in balancing scientific input with perceptions of neutrality during politically charged disputes. As climate cases proliferate, the absence of such a resource may shape future rulings. What implications do you see for judicial independence? Share your thoughts in the comments.
For more details, see the original reporting by ProPublica.
