A group of 27 Republican attorneys general is urging the removal of climate-related content from a federal judicial reference manual, arguing the material presents contested advocacy positions as settled science and risks biasing judges in climate litigation.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A coalition of 27 Republican attorneys general is challenging climate-related material included in a federal judicial reference manual, arguing it improperly advances one-sided advocacy under the appearance of neutral scientific education and risks influencing judges presiding over climate-related lawsuits.
The concerns were detailed in reporting by Just the News, which described objections raised by the attorneys general to climate science content presented to federal judges as an impartial training resource according to details published by Just the News. The coalition is led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, whose office has publicly outlined the effort here.
In a formal letter to the Federal Judicial Center, the attorneys general argue that climate-related material should be removed from the “Reference Manual on Science,” a publication used by thousands of federal judges. The coalition contends the material departs from the manual’s stated purpose of describing basic scientific principles without guiding judges on what evidence should be considered admissible.
The Federal Judicial Center, an education and research agency for the federal courts, publishes the manual here. In their letter to the FJC, the attorneys general argue that instead of focusing on undisputed principles, the climate section adopts positions aligned with plaintiffs suing energy companies and treats disputed scientific questions as settled fact.
The letter notes that the manual is distributed to more than 3,000 judges, has been cited in more than 1,700 judicial opinions, and has been referenced multiple times by the U.S. Supreme Court, factors the coalition says make neutrality essential. The attorneys general also argue the concerns mirror earlier criticism of the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which has trained thousands of judges while excluding perspectives favorable to defendants in climate cases, as previously reported by Just the News.
Among the coalition’s objections is the selection of authors for the climate science material. The attorneys general highlight Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, both affiliated with Columbia University climate programs, linking to their professional profiles here and here. The pair co-authored a paper advocating litigation as a means to advance climate policy when legislative efforts have failed.
In that paper, the authors assert that while political debate over climate science persists, courts have not questioned the scientific basis for the prevailing understanding of climate change. The attorneys general dispute that characterization, arguing climate science remains complex and uncertain, particularly regarding the attribution of extreme weather to carbon dioxide emissions, citing broader discussions of uncertainty here.
The coalition further notes that Wentz and Horton co-authored the litigation-advocacy paper with Michael Burger, who serves as counsel for the city of Honolulu in its ongoing lawsuit against energy companies, detailed here. Burger is also of counsel at the law firm Sher Edling, as described here.
The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability launched an investigation into Sher Edling in 2023, seeking information on the funding behind climate lawsuits “aimed at bankrupting oil and gas companies,” according to committee materials here. In the firm’s response, published here, Sher Edling argued that its clients are not seeking damages for all effects of climate change, but only those allegedly caused by deception.
The attorneys general say Burger’s work is cited four times in the judicial manual in sections dealing with climate litigation frameworks, attribution of responsibility, and the role of courts, without disclosure that he is actively engaged in litigation that would benefit from the perspectives presented.
The letter also points to citations of research by climatologist Michael Mann, who was recently ordered to pay two bloggers $28,000 after a judge found “bad faith litigation tactics” in his defamation lawsuit, as reported here. The jury in that case initially awarded Mann $1 million before the amount was reduced.
The coalition argues the manual excludes credentialed researchers who hold differing views, including authors of a Department of Energy climate assessment commissioned last year. That assessment is available here. Energy Secretary Chris Wright commissioned the report specifically because the authors’ work is often excluded from official assessments, a practice the coalition says creates a misleading impression of consensus.
“Thus, one side’s view becomes the baseline for all future judicial decisions on the subject,” the letter states.
Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said the material represents a “pernicious” effort to influence courts, telling Just the News that advocacy is being “laundered effectively through the Federal Judicial Center,” giving it the appearance of neutral government education via the Judicial Crisis Network.
The letter further details instances where disputed positions are presented as uncontested facts, arguing that the authors offer unsolicited expert opinions on issues central to ongoing litigation and dismiss arguments that climate science may be too uncertain to justify legal relief.
The Federal Judicial Center declined to comment on the coalition’s letter.
The attorneys general also drew parallels to prior litigation involving Multnomah County, Oregon, where a judge rebuked the county for failing to disclose that its lead asbestos trial lawyer was involved in research cited in support of its climate lawsuit, as reported here.
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, which produced a report on the Climate Judiciary Project here, said the interconnections between climate litigators and research presented to judges as neutral are “mind boggling.” The American Energy Institute’s work is available here.
“The climate cult has found its way into our judicial system,” Isaac said.
Original article
Comments