{"id":12,"date":"2026-05-20T13:41:12","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T13:41:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/propertytransitionmedia.com\/?p=12"},"modified":"2026-05-20T13:41:12","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T13:41:12","slug":"23-state-ags-probe-federal-judicial-centers-distribution-of-biased-climate-guide-to-judges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/propertytransitionmedia.com\/?p=12","title":{"rendered":"23 State AGs Probe Federal Judicial Center’s Distribution Of ‘Biased’ Climate Guide To Judges"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A coalition of state attorneys general is demanding answers about the Federal Judicial Center\u2019s (FJC) distribution of a science manual to federal judges that contained citations to left-wing climate activists. <\/p>\n

Read more Covid Dissenter Alex Berenson\u2019s Free Speech Victory Might Be The First Of Many<\/a><\/p>\n

Signed by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and 22 other state AGs, the May 13 letter first reported on Monday pressed Robert J. Conrad, Jr., the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, on the status of the FJC\u2019s most recent Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence<\/em>. The manual is designed to guide and inform federal judges in their assessment of science-related matters in cases that come before the bench. <\/p>\n

The FJC \u2014 which serves as the research and educational arm of the judiciary \u2014 came under fire earlier this year when it was discovered that the manual\u2019s most recent edition contained a \u201cReference Guide on Climate Science\u201d that included citations and references to left-wing climate activists. It was only after backlash ensued that the FJC retracted the climate guide from the manual. <\/p>\n

\u201cThat chapter was authored by advocates with documented ties to plaintiff-side climate litigation, reviewed in part by an attorney actively litigating climate change cases against energy companies, and written in a manner that presents sharply contested litigation positions as settled scientific fact. Rather than offering the federal judiciary an objective guide to scientific principles, the chapter functions as an ex parte<\/em> brief for one side of ongoing litigation,\u201d the state AG\u2019s letter reads. \u201c\u2026 [T]he chapter\u2019s stamp of institutional authority effectively prejudges questions that litigants are entitled to have resolved through the adversarial process, in violation of Article III\u2019s guarantee of an independent and impartial tribunal.\u201d<\/p>\n

While \u201cencouraged\u201d by the FJC\u2019s February decision to retract the climate guide section from the online version of the manual, Skrmetti and the other state attorneys general expressed concern to Conrad \u201cthat FJC\u2019s online adjustment does not fully resolve \u2026 the distribution of physical, hard-copy editions of the Manual\u201d to federal judges. They further noted how the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) \u2014 which\u00a0co-authored\u00a0the manual alongside the FJC \u2014 still posts the manual\u2019s climate section on its\u00a0website, which they argue presents \u201ca direct conflict between the institutional judgment of the FJC \u2026 and the ongoing conduct of NASEM.\u201d<\/p>\n

The letter reads:<\/p>\n

\n

This conflict creates an untenable situation for the judges the Manual is designed to serve as well as for litigants. The FJC says the chapter has been \u2018omitted.\u2019 NASEM says the chapter \u2018will continue to be available.\u2019 A federal judge who becomes aware of both positions faces an ethical puzzle that no judge should be forced to navigate: Is the chapter part of the authoritative Manual or not? May the judge consult it? Is a party\u2019s citation to it appropriate? Even worse, litigants are left in the dark as to which version of the Manual a particular judge might reference.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The state AGs went on to note that the FJC\u2019s move to retract the manual\u2019s climate section was based on its \u201cinadequacy as a guide for judicial decision-making,\u201d but that such a decision is \u201cdefeated\u201d if physical copies \u201ccontaining the chapter remain in circulation, or if NASEM\u2019s version is treated by litigants as carrying the FJC\u2019s implicit endorsement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more Media Livid Over Trump Acknowledging Christian Founding<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cJudges and the parties before them deserve clarity, and the AoC is well positioned to provide it,\u201d the letter reads.<\/p>\n

The May 13 communique was issued days after The Federalist reported on the far-left backgrounds of the climate section\u2019s authors. While co-author Jessica Wentz previously espoused views similar to left-wing censors on so-called \u201cdisinformation\u201d and seemingly anti-Trump sentiments, co-author Radley Horton used his social media presence to elevate the left\u2019s \u201cracial justice\u201d agenda. <\/p>\n

The manual\u2019s forensics section was similarly found to have been authored by far-left academics, according to a Federalist investigation. <\/p>\n

Skrmetti and the state attorneys general concluded their letter asking Conrad to confirm whether hard copies of the manual\u2019s most recent edition \u201cdistributed through FJC or AoC channels will include the climate science chapter that FJC has formally omitted from its website,\u201d and that \u201cNo hard copies containing the chapter have been distributed to members of the federal judiciary through FJC or AoC channels.\u201d The state law enforcement officers further requested Conrad\u2019s office notify the Judicial Conference about the discrepancy between the FJC\u2019s retraction of the climate guide and the NASEM\u2019s refusal to follow suit \u201cso that the Conference may consider what further steps are appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n