Listen to the article
Federal Judiciary Removes Controversial Climate Section from Judges’ Scientific Guide
The Federal Judicial Center has removed a contentious climate science chapter from its influential Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, following scrutiny over alleged liberal bias in the document’s sourcing. The decision came just days after media reports highlighted concerns about the manual’s objectivity.
Judge Robin Rosenberg, an Obama appointee who leads the center, notified West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey of the removal in a letter sent late Friday. “The Federal Judicial Center has omitted the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition,” Rosenberg wrote, providing a link to the updated guide on the center’s website.
The approximately 1,600-page manual, released on December 31, had included a climate policy section that critics claimed contained material from left-wing climate advocates. After the revision, the document appears to have been reduced by about 20 pages, with a footnote in the appendix confirming that “The FJC omitted ‘Reference Guide on Climate Science’ on 2/6/2026.”
The removal represents a significant victory for state attorneys general who had raised concerns about the manual’s content. McCuskey and Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers had recently urged the House Judiciary Committee to expand its investigation into climate-related policy influence on federal judges to include the contents of the manual.
“We have just received notice that, because of our efforts, the chapter is being removed,” McCuskey said in a statement, describing it as a “win for impartiality in our judiciary and for the people of West Virginia.” He also acknowledged Hilgers’ “incredible work” on the effort, along with other attorneys general who pressed for oversight.
Legal experts had criticized the original version of the manual for containing citations and footnotes referencing climate change activists and proponents, including climatologist Michael Mann and environmental law expert Jessica Wentz. Critics argued that the content was indoctrinating judges rather than educating them on scientific evidence.
Following the change, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton characterized the original version as “political pamphleteering for the climate scam” and called for “public accounting of how that [chapter] happened.”
The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence serves as an important resource for federal judges handling cases that involve complex scientific testimony and evidence. The guide aims to provide judges with objective information about various scientific disciplines to help them evaluate expert testimony and make informed decisions.
The controversy highlights ongoing tensions between environmental policy advocates and those concerned about political bias influencing the judiciary. Climate-related litigation has become increasingly common in federal courts, making the impartiality of judicial resources on the topic particularly sensitive.
The Federal Judicial Center, housed in the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C., serves as the research and education agency of the federal judicial system. Its publications and educational programs significantly influence how federal judges approach complex scientific and technical issues in the courtroom.
While the center has removed the climate science chapter, it has not issued a public statement explaining the rationale behind the original inclusion or subsequent removal of the material. The decision underscores the challenge of providing scientific guidance on politically charged topics while maintaining the judiciary’s commitment to neutrality and objectivity.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
This decision raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process. Climate science should not be treated as a partisan issue – it is the foundation for understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of human activities. I hope the Federal Judicial Center will reconsider this move and ensure judges have access to reliable, up-to-date information.
As someone who follows mining and energy news closely, I’m disappointed to see the climate science chapter removed from this influential judicial reference manual. Objective, evidence-based decision-making is crucial, especially on complex environmental issues that intersect with economic interests. I hope this does not set a precedent of excluding scientific knowledge from the courts.
This seems like a concerning precedent. Judges should have access to the best available scientific information to make informed decisions, even on complex and politically charged issues like climate change. I hope the removal of this chapter does not undermine the role of evidence-based policy in the courts.
I agree. Removing scientific information from an authoritative judicial reference manual could open the door to greater politicization of the courts. Maintaining the separation of science and politics is crucial for upholding the rule of law.
Interesting development. I’m curious to hear more about the alleged bias in the climate science chapter and why it was ultimately removed from the judges’ manual. What are the implications for how climate evidence is presented in the courts going forward?
Valid question. The removal of the climate science section does raise concerns about potential political interference in the judicial process. It will be important to ensure scientific integrity and objectivity are maintained.
As someone with an interest in mining and energy issues, I’m curious how this decision could impact legal proceedings related to environmental regulations and resource extraction projects. Will the lack of a climate science reference guide make it harder for judges to properly weigh the scientific evidence?
That’s a good point. Without clear guidance on climate science, judges may struggle to evaluate the environmental impacts of mining, energy, and other industrial activities. This could lead to inconsistent rulings and undermine environmental protections.
While I understand the desire to avoid political bias, removing scientific information from an official judicial reference manual seems short-sighted. Climate change is a critical issue that affects many areas of law and policy. Judges should have access to the latest peer-reviewed research to make informed decisions.