Is a trusted legal guide secretly pushing a climate agenda? That’s the explosive question at the heart of a growing controversy surrounding the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a 1,600-page tome judges rely on to navigate complex scientific topics. But here’s where it gets controversial: the latest edition, released earlier this year, has legal experts crying foul over what they see as a disturbing tilt toward climate activism in its climate change section. And this is the part most people miss: the guide, which includes a foreword by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, cites prominent climate advocates like Michael Mann and Jessica Wentz, raising concerns about impartiality.
Wentz, a senior fellow at Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Law and chief author of the climate section, is no stranger to climate litigation. She testified in Juliana v. U.S., a case where young activists accused the government of violating their rights by not implementing their preferred climate policies. She also backed the Obama administration’s environmental regulations in 2016. But here’s the kicker: Wentz leads the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) at the Environmental Law Institute, which is currently under federal investigation for allegedly trying to sway federal judges.
House Judiciary Committee members Jim Jordan and Darrell Issa have accused the CJP of attempting to “predispose federal judges in favor of plaintiffs alleging injuries from fossil-fuel products.” A spokesperson for the institute defended the CJP’s curriculum as “fact-based and science-first,” but critics aren’t buying it.
Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, warns, “It’s alarming to see how far the Left has gone to capture the judiciary. Feeding trial lawyers’ climate ‘science’ to judges undermines our justice system.” Michael Fragoso, former chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell, agrees, calling the climate section “shockingly inappropriate” and pointing out that parts of it were lifted from a previous article co-authored by a climate-plaintiff lawyer.
But here’s the real head-scratcher: Why would a supposedly neutral guide include such partisan voices? And why is a plaintiff lawyer allowed to ‘explain’ attribution science—a core issue in climate lawsuits—to judges? As Fragoso notes, “It’s hidden in a random footnote, but it’s a huge red flag.”
This isn’t just about one guide; it’s about the integrity of our judicial system. Are judges being subtly steered toward favoring climate plaintiffs? Or is this just a harmless inclusion of diverse perspectives? The debate is heating up, and it’s one you won’t want to miss.
What do you think? Is this a legitimate concern or much ado about nothing? Let us know in the comments below—this is a conversation that needs your voice.
