A crucial resource for judges across the nation – a comprehensive reference manual on scientific evidence – is now facing intense scrutiny. Concerns are mounting that the latest edition has crossed a critical line, potentially injecting ideological bias into a guide meant to provide neutral, objective information.
The Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual, a hefty volume of approximately 1,600 pages, is designed to equip judges with the scientific understanding needed to navigate complex cases. However, critics allege the fourth edition, featuring a foreword by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, leans heavily into the perspectives of climate change activists, blurring the boundary between education and advocacy.
The manual’s climate section prominently features citations and references to figures deeply involved in climate activism, including climatologist Michael Mann and environmental law expert Jessica Wentz. Wentz leads the Climate Judiciary Project at the Environmental Law Institute, an organization currently under federal investigation.
The House Judiciary Committee is actively investigating allegations that the Environmental Law Institute attempted to improperly influence federal judges. Evidence suggests a deliberate effort to sway judges presiding over climate change lawsuits, potentially predisposing them to favor plaintiffs seeking damages from fossil fuel companies.
While the institute defends its curriculum as “fact-based and science-first,” critics argue the selection of authors and the content itself reveal a clear bias. Jessica Wentz, listed as chief author of the climate section, previously testified as a witness for plaintiffs in a high-profile climate lawsuit, and actively supported Obama-era environmental regulations.
Legal experts warn that incorporating such partisan viewpoints into a supposedly impartial guide could have serious consequences for the integrity of the judicial system. The concern is that judges, relying on this manual, may be subtly steered towards specific conclusions in climate-related litigation.
The manual’s section on “attribution science” – determining the extent to which climate change causes specific events – is particularly troubling. A significant portion of this section appears to be directly lifted from a previous article authored by Wentz and another climate-plaintiff lawyer, raising questions about objectivity.
This isn’t simply about differing scientific opinions; it’s about the potential for a foundational legal resource to be used to subtly influence judicial decisions. Critics argue that by allowing a plaintiff lawyer to “explain” attribution science to judges, the manual undermines the principles of impartial justice.
Michael Mann, another key figure cited in the guide, has a history of contentious legal battles over his climate research. His work, and his criticisms of those who challenge it, have been the subject of intense debate and even litigation. The manual cites his book, which alleges deceptive practices by the energy industry.
The implications are profound. If judges are subtly influenced by biased information, it could fundamentally alter the landscape of climate litigation, potentially opening the door to a wave of lawsuits against energy companies based on contested scientific claims. The debate underscores a growing concern about the politicization of science and its impact on the legal system.
When approached for comment, Jessica Wentz declined to respond. Michael Mann also did not respond to inquiries, leaving unanswered questions about the motivations behind the manual’s content and the potential ramifications for the pursuit of justice.
