Full Breakdown
Federal Judiciary Removes Controversial Climate Chapter from Scientific Evidence Manual
2/10/2026, 8:16:45 PM
Core Event: Removal of Climate Science Chapter
The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the research arm of the U.S. federal judiciary, has removed a chapter addressing climate science from its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. This decision follows pressure from Republican state attorneys-general who argued that the chapter exhibited bias against fossil fuel companies. The chapter was part of the fourth edition of the manual, released in December 2025, which serves as a resource for judges dealing with scientific testimony.
Background & Context: Controversy Over Bias
The climate chapter, authored by Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton from Columbia Law School, aimed to assist judges in evaluating expert testimony related to climate science. However, critics, including West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey and Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, contended that the content was influenced by left-leaning climate advocates and could skew judicial impartiality. In a letter dated January 29, 2026, McCuskey and 26 other Republican attorneys-general expressed concerns that the chapter would "tip the scales" in litigation involving climate-related issues.
Official Statements & Responses
Following the removal of the chapter, McCuskey described the decision as a "win for impartiality in our judiciary and for the people of West Virginia." Hilgers echoed this sentiment, expressing pride in their collaborative efforts to ensure oversight. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton criticized the original chapter as "political pamphleteering for the climate scam." The FJC has not provided further comments regarding the chapter's removal.
Criticism & Opposition: Concerns Over Judicial Impartiality
Opponents of the climate chapter, particularly the Republican attorneys-general, argued that its inclusion would have compromised the judiciary's neutrality. They claimed that the chapter was "rife with methodology issues" and suggested that it was designed to promote a specific viewpoint on climate science without critical examination. This perspective highlights ongoing tensions between state-led climate litigation and the interests of fossil fuel companies.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps: Ongoing Debate
While the chapter has been removed, the implications of its initial inclusion remain a topic of debate. Critics argue that the removal does not address the underlying issues of bias in scientific testimony related to climate change. Additionally, the FJC has not disclosed the specific reasons for the chapter's removal or the process that led to its initial inclusion in the manual.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Bias towards left-leaning climate policies would have absolutely tipped the scales in many cases.” — JB McCuskey, West Virginia Attorney General
The removal of the climate chapter from the FJC's manual underscores the ongoing conflict between differing political perspectives on climate science and its implications for the judicial system.
