Federal Judicial Center Removes Climate Science Chapter After Fox News Investigation
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Judicial Center, the research and education agency of the federal judiciary, has removed a contentious climate science chapter from its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence following a Fox News Digital investigation that raised questions about the impartiality of its sources. The manual, widely used by judges across the country to navigate complex scientific issues in litigation, had included a climate policy section in its fourth edition released on December 31, 2025. Critics argued that the content relied heavily on left-leaning climate advocates, potentially skewing judicial understanding and influencing court decisions on environmental matters.
Federal Judge Robin Rosenberg, appointed by former President Obama and currently leading the Federal Judicial Center, informed West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey that the climate chapter was officially removed late last week. McCuskey, along with Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, had pushed for scrutiny of the chapter’s content and sourcing, urging the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the manual’s influence on judges.
The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence serves as a key resource for federal judges, providing guidance on interpreting scientific data and expert testimony. The inclusion of the climate section had sparked controversy because it was perceived by some legal and political observers as an attempt to indoctrinate judges with a particular environmental viewpoint rather than presenting balanced scientific evidence. This development underscores ongoing tensions over the role of science in the judiciary and the politicization of climate change debates within legal frameworks.
Fox News Digital’s report highlighted that the climate chapter drew extensively from organizations and experts known for their advocacy on climate change, rather than maintaining a neutral stance. The report prompted swift action from the Federal Judicial Center to reassess the material. The Center’s decision to excise the chapter reflects an effort to preserve the manual’s credibility and ensure judicial impartiality.
Judges traditionally rely on the manual to better understand complex scientific issues without overstepping their constitutional role. As legal commentator Mark Levin noted on Fox News, judges are not meant to second-guess the executive or legislative branches on policy matters but rather to adjudicate based on law and evidence. The controversy surrounding the climate chapter raised concerns that the manual was veering into policy advocacy.
The Federal Judicial Center’s move comes amid broader debates about the judiciary’s role in environmental regulation and climate policy enforcement. The manual’s climate section had been viewed by some as potentially influencing judicial rulings on cases involving environmental regulations, energy policy, and related litigation.
For more information on the Federal Judicial Center and its publications, visit their official site at fjc.gov. The House Judiciary Committee’s oversight of judicial matters can be followed at judiciary.house.gov. Additionally, the Department of Justice provides resources on federal judicial administration at justice.gov. For broader context on climate science and policy, the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate change page offers authoritative information.
This episode highlights the challenges faced by the judiciary in balancing scientific expertise with impartial adjudication, especially on politically charged topics like climate change. The Federal Judicial Center’s prompt response to concerns raised by investigative reporting demonstrates the ongoing vigilance required to maintain trust in judicial resources and processes.
Leave a Reply