Judicial Panel Retracts Climate Guidance After GOP Pushback
▼ Summary
– The Federal Judicial Center, an advisory body for US judges, removed a chapter on climate change from its scientific evidence manual after complaints from Republican state attorneys general.
– The attorneys general objected specifically to the chapter’s treatment of human-caused climate change as an established scientific fact.
– The manual is an educational reference designed to help judges understand complex scientific topics that arise in legal cases.
– The deleted chapter was authored by Columbia University experts and was part of the manual’s fourth edition, produced with the National Academies of Science.
– The complaint argued the manual improperly took a side in a disputed scientific area, despite the document routinely presenting established scientific consensus on other topics.
A judicial advisory body in the United States has removed a chapter on climate science from a key reference manual for judges, following formal objections from a group of Republican state attorneys general. The decision by the Federal Judicial Center to delete the section, which presented the human influence on climate as an established fact, highlights the ongoing political contention surrounding the scientific consensus on global warming and its role within the legal system.
The Federal Judicial Center operates as the official research and education agency for the federal judiciary. One of its core functions is to produce reference materials that assist judges in understanding complex subjects that frequently arise in court cases. The “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” now in its fourth edition, is a prime example. Developed in partnership with the National Academies of Sciences, this manual addresses foundational scientific processes and specific technical areas common in litigation, such as statistical analysis, DNA evidence, and toxic chemical exposure.
The latest edition, initially published in December, included a new chapter on climate change authored by two researchers from Columbia University. This addition soon drew criticism from a coalition of attorneys general representing states with Republican leadership. In late January, they submitted a formal letter to the Center’s leadership outlining their grievances. The primary objection centered on the text’s treatment of human-caused climate change as a settled scientific reality, rather than a subject of ongoing dispute.
The letter argued that the manual’s stance compromised judicial impartiality. “Nothing is ‘independent’ or ‘impartial’ in issuing a document on behalf of America’s judges declaring that only one preferred view is ‘within the boundaries of scientifically sound knowledge,'” the complaint stated. It further contended that “The Fourth Edition places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation: climate-related science and ‘attribution.'” Notably, the letter did not challenge other sections of the manual that similarly present well-established scientific principles as factual.
In direct response to this pressure, the Federal Judicial Center opted to retract the entire climate science chapter from the reference manual. This action leaves judges without a centralized, judicially-sanctioned resource on the topic, potentially affecting how climate evidence is evaluated in future lawsuits. The episode underscores how politically charged debates over scientific consensus can influence the tools available to the judicial branch, even those intended to be purely educational.
(Source: Ars Technica)
