Federal Judicial Center withdraws climate change guide following Republican pressure
WASHINGTON – The Federal Judicial Center has scrubbed an entire chapter on climate change from its flagship scientific manual for judges, bowing to pressure from Republican attorneys general.
The removal leaves federal and state judges without an official reference on climate science even as a wave of major environmental lawsuits moves through the court system. The "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence" was updated on Dec. 31, 2025, marking its first revision in 15 years.
The omitted section consisted of more than 90 pages reflecting the United Nations’ scientific consensus on global warming.
Shortly after the manual’s release, more than 20 Republican attorneys general petitioned Congress, labeling the chapter "biased." They characterized the text as an attempt to "rig the outcome of lawsuits" against oil and gas corporations.
FJC Director Judge Robin Rosenberg confirmed on Feb. 6 that the chapter had been pulled from the publication.
One of the chapter's authors condemned the decision, describing it as a "bad faith" act intended to suppress scientific information.
Saigon Sentinel Analysis
The politicization of the U.S. judiciary has reached a new and troubling frontier, moving beyond bench appointments and into the technical support apparatuses that are supposed to remain neutral. The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), overseen by Chief Justice John Roberts, appears to have succumbed to a coordinated pressure campaign from Republican legal officials. This is not merely an academic dispute; it is a calculated strike against the institutional guardrails of the American legal system.
The strategy employed by state attorneys general is clear: rather than litigating climate science on its merits in open court, they are targeting the evidentiary foundation at its source. By successfully labeling a chapter reflecting global scientific consensus as "biased," these officials have effectively neutralized a primary reference for the bench. This creates a veneer of "manufactured doubt," designed to influence how judges and clerks interpret evidence in high-stakes climate litigation involving billions of dollars in corporate liability.
The immediate consequence of this move is the creation of a dangerous information vacuum. Without authoritative, non-partisan reference materials, judges are forced to navigate specialized scientific arguments bolstered only by "hired gun" experts from opposing sides. This shift provides an inherent advantage to well-resourced fossil fuel corporations, whose financial might allows them to dominate the evidentiary record with skepticism.
In the long term, this sets a chilling precedent for judicial gatekeeping. If scientific consensus can be purged from court manuals to satisfy a political agenda, the same playbook could be applied to public health, emerging technologies, or artificial intelligence. This conflict is about more than climate change; it is a battle for the role of objective truth and scientific integrity within the U.S. legal framework.