The recent controversy surrounding the Federal Judicial Center's (FJC) fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence highlights a troubling pattern of institutional bias creeping into the judiciary on the issue of climate change. Released earlier in 2026 with a foreword by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, this roughly 1,600-page tome is positioned as a neutral, "gold-standard" resource to help US federal judges grapple with complex scientific evidence in litigation. Yet its section on climate science has drawn sharp rebukes from legal experts and critics as "shocking and inappropriate" for injecting what appears to be one-sided advocacy rather than balanced education.
From a climate sceptic perspective, this manual exemplifies how activist-driven narratives are being laundered through ostensibly authoritative channels to predispose judges toward alarmist claims in ongoing and future lawsuits — particularly those targeting fossil fuel companies over alleged climate harms. The climate chapter cites and footnotes prominent figures in the climate litigation ecosystem, including climatologist Michael Mann (known for the controversial "hockey stick" graph and aggressive advocacy) and Jessica Wentz, a key figure at Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and tied to the Environmental Law Institute's (ELI) Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). These are are deeply invested in promoting the narrative that human-caused climate change is catastrophic, urgent, and actionable through the courts.
Critics argue this blurs — or outright erases — the line between objective judicial education and indoctrination. A resource meant to equip judges with tools to evaluate evidence fairly instead risks priming them to accept alarmist assumptions as settled fact: that climate change is overwhelmingly anthropogenic, that models projecting doom are reliable, and that concepts like the "social cost of carbon" should guide damage calculations in litigation. Such framing effectively prejudges key disputes in climate nuisance cases, where defendants (energy producers) challenge attribution, foreseeability, and the propriety of judicial remedies for global phenomena better left to policy branches.
This isn't isolated. It ties into broader concerns about the ELI's CJP, which has faced scrutiny from the House Judiciary Committee (under Chairman Jim Jordan) for allegedly improper influence via seminars, curricula, and materials aimed at judges. Republican-led probes, including letters demanding records, highlight how such programs may violate judicial ethics by exposing judges to one-sided content from parties with stakes in pending litigation. A coalition of 27 state attorneys general (led by West Virginia) has gone further, demanding the manual's withdrawal due to its authorship and sourcing by litigation proponents. They point out that the climate section relies on biased research and effectively endorses plaintiff-favourable positions, undermining impartiality.
Sceptics see this as part of a concerted strategy: use "educational" tools to shape judicial worldview before cases even hit the docket. Climate litigation often hinges on Daubert hearings (assessing expert testimony reliability) or motions to dismiss — precisely where a manual like this could sway outcomes. If judges internalise that dissent on aspects of climate science is fringe or unworthy of serious consideration, it stacks the deck against balanced adjudication. This echoes historical concerns about judicial capture, where extrajudicial influences erode the separation of powers — courts shouldn't be nudged toward policy outcomes (like massive wealth transfers via climate damages) that belong to elected legislatures.
True neutrality would require balanced sourcing: including perspectives from scientists questioning aspects of mainstream models (e.g., on climate sensitivity, natural variability, or model hindcasting failures), or economists critiquing integrated assessment models underlying "social cost" figures. Instead, the manual's apparent reliance on advocacy-linked contributors risks turning judicial education into a vector for activism.
In an era where climate lawsuits seek to bypass democratic processes and impose sweeping economic changes, any hint of bias in judicial resources is deeply problematic. The judiciary must remain a neutral arbiter, not an extension of environmental campaigns. Calls to retract or revise this section — and greater transparency around programs like CJP — are warranted to preserve public confidence in the courts. Until then, this episode reinforces the sceptic view: the push for "climate justice" through law often prioritises ideology over evidence and impartiality.