Full Breakdown
Attorneys General Demand Expanded Probe into Judicial Bias in Climate Policy
2/3/2026, 9:47:13 AM
Core Event: Call for Investigation into Judicial Influence
A coalition of 22 state attorneys general is urging the House Judiciary Committee to expand its investigation into alleged biases in federal judges regarding climate policy. This request follows concerns raised about the Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC) updated "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence," which critics claim contains ideological bias favoring climate change advocacy.
Background & Context: The Federal Judicial Center's Manual
The FJC, which serves as the research and education agency for the federal judiciary, recently published the fourth edition of its manual on December 31. This edition includes a foreword by Justice Elena Kagan and extensive references to climate change experts, including Jessica Wentz and Michael Mann, which have prompted accusations of bias. Critics argue that the manual, traditionally seen as a neutral resource, now reflects a one-sided perspective on climate science.
Key Figures & Groups: Leading Voices in the Controversy
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers is spearheading the initiative, addressing House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and other key figures. The coalition includes attorneys general from states such as Alaska, Florida, West Virginia, and Texas, who collectively express concerns over the manual's influence on judicial impartiality. Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, and O.H. Skinner from Alliance for Consumers have also voiced their opposition, labeling the manual's content as "outcome-shaping."
Official Statements & Responses: Concerns Over Impartiality
In their letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the attorneys general assert that the FJC's manual presents a biased view that could influence judicial outcomes. Hilgers stated, "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." The group emphasizes the need for courts to remain neutral and fair.
Criticism & Opposition: Dissenting Views on Judicial Influence
Critics of the manual argue that it undermines the judiciary's impartiality by embedding controversial climate theories into judicial guidance. Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox remarked on the growing trend of "politically motivated groups" using the courts to advance their climate agenda. This sentiment was echoed by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, who called for the protection of the judicial system from "junk science."
Conflicting Reports & Gaps: Lack of Response from Key Figures
While the attorneys general have made their concerns public, responses from the FJC and the individuals cited in the manual, including Jessica Wentz, have been limited. Wentz declined to comment when approached by Fox News Digital, and inquiries directed at House Judiciary Committee members have not yet yielded responses.
Verbatim Quotes: Direct Voices from the Controversy
- "The chapter presents this science as authoritative without acknowledging contrary views or disclosing the many conflicts of the authors, reviewers, and sources." — Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers
- "Such work undermines the judiciary’s impartiality and places a thumb on one side of the scale." — West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey
- "That is not education, it is outcome-shaping, and it directly undermines judicial impartiality." — Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute
This ongoing debate highlights the intersection of climate policy and judicial integrity, raising significant questions about the role of scientific evidence in legal contexts.
