Nearly half of the state attorneys general are pushing for a deeper inquiry into how climate policy influences the decisions of federal judges. This call to action follows recent critiques of the Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC) latest edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.” The manual spans 1,600 pages but has been described by some as straying from its traditionally neutral stance, swaying toward climate change ideology through selective sourcing.
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers is at the forefront of this effort. In his letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa, he claims the updated manual attempts to skew judicial outcomes in favor of specific interests. This accusation stems from concerns that the manual includes extensive materials from studies and works associated with climate change advocates, which could impact judicial impartiality in cases related to environmental laws.
The FJC typically provides guidance to judges on scientific evidence but now faces accusations of bias. Critics point to the foreword by Justice Elena Kagan, who hailed previous editions for promoting fair legal decisions, as overly optimistic given that the current manual is under fire for its content. The letter from the attorneys general highlights that the chapter on climate change presents a “highly biased, agenda-driven view.” They argue that it seemingly endorses the narratives put forth by plaintiff advocates without acknowledging opposing viewpoints, raising severe ethical implications.
Hilgers articulated the core of the issue clearly: “When the same advocates and experts who are actively litigating climate cases help write and review a chapter that will be used by federal judges behind the scenes, it raises obvious and serious concerns about the impartiality of the judicial system.” His statement encapsulates the anxiety that the integrity of the courts is at stake when external agendas infiltrate judicial resources.
Not only Hilgers, but also several other attorneys general from states like Alaska, Florida, West Virginia, and others have joined the cause, underscoring that this scrutiny is not an isolated concern. “We’ve seen ridiculous legal warfare grow across the country,” stated West Virginia’s AG J.B. McCuskey, indicating a broader frustration among states over perceived politicization in the judicial process.
Further complicating matters, the manual’s reliance on findings from those directly involved in litigation, such as climatologist Michael Mann, only fuels suspicions. It has been suggested that intermingling scientific guidance with partisan influence undermines the perceived neutrality that should govern judicial decisions. McCuskey emphasized that this trend threatens the very foundation of judicial impartiality. He remarked, “Such work undermines the judiciary’s impartiality and places a thumb on one side of the scale.”
Industry leaders share these concerns. Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, criticized the FJC for allegedly using taxpayer dollars to promote “plaintiff-driven climate alarmist theories.” This assertion hints at a growing intersection between legal standards and ideological battles, particularly concerning energy and environmental policies.
The reference manual, which ideally should serve as a reliable educational tool, instead is perceived by some as an instrument that shapes desired outcomes in legal contexts. “That is not education; it is outcome-shaping,” Isaac asserted. The sentiment that the manual strays from its educational purpose to one that leans heavily toward a specific ideological agenda raises alarms about what judges may be learning and applying in their rulings.
O.H. Skinner of Alliance for Consumers commented that this development illustrates the “woke lawfare playbook in action,” suggesting that activists are leveraging judicial processes to cement their views into law. This rhetoric reflects a growing distrust of the legal system’s impartiality among those who view climate change advocacy as an encroachment on traditional legal principles.
The growing discontent among state attorneys general over this issue represents an increasingly vocal pushback against what they see as the politicization of judicial resources. With accusations of bias and improper influence now gaining traction, this situation may evolve into a pivotal moment in the discourse on climate policy and its intersection with the judiciary. The call for investigations into the FJC’s reference manual underscores the urgent need for transparency and neutrality in a system where fairness should be paramount.
"*" indicates required fields
