Judicial Independence Under Scrutiny: State AGs Demand Congressional Probe Into Climate Bias Allegations in Federal Bench Guide

EXCLUSIVE – A bloc representing nearly half of the nation’s state attorneys general is calling on the House Judiciary Committee to broaden an ongoing investigation into external influence on federal judges. The demand focuses on a newly revised judicial reference manual that critics allege introduces ideological bias into the scientific guidance provided to the bench.

The move follows a report highlighting substantial revisions to the Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a 1,600-page guide considered essential for judges ruling on complex technical matters. The manual’s latest edition, published in December, includes a foreword by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and cites numerous climate law advocates and researchers in its footnotes.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers is leading the coalition. In a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Senate Judiciary leaders, Hilgers argued the manual represents an "inappropriate attempt to rig case outcomes" by presenting a one-sided view of climate science. The FJC, the federal judiciary’s research and education arm chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, has traditionally been viewed as nonpartisan.

"When the same advocates actively litigating climate cases help write the guidance judges use behind the bench, it fundamentally compromises the perception of fairness," Hilgers told Fox News Digital. "Americans deserve courts that are neutral arbiters, not venues pre-loaded with activist science."

The attorneys general specifically pointed to citations from Columbia University’s Jessica Wentz, a climate policy advocate who has opposed major energy projects, and Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist. They contend the manual treats contested climate attribution methodologies as settled science, without acknowledging opposing views or disclosing potential conflicts of interest among its sources.

West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, who also co-signed a separate letter to the FJC, warned of a "creeping politicization" of judicial resources. "We’ve seen activist litigation explode nationwide. Now, there’s a risk that the very guides meant to inform judges are being weaponized," McCuskey stated. "This isn’t education—it’s outcome-shaping."

The controversy touches a nerve in the long-running battle over climate litigation. Dozens of states and municipalities have sued energy companies over climate impacts, and the judicial reference manual could play a behind-the-scenes role in how judges evaluate scientific evidence in those cases.

Voices from the Legal Community:

Prof. Eleanor Vance, Constitutional Law Scholar: "The FJC’s role is to provide neutral, technical context—not to wade into politically charged debates. Even the appearance of taking a side in ongoing litigation undermines public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality."

David Chen, Former Federal Clerk: "Judges rely on these manuals for grounding in unfamiliar disciplines. If the sourcing is overwhelmingly drawn from one side of an adversarial issue, it inevitably shapes the framework of their reasoning, however unintentionally."

Rebecca Shaw, Environmental Law Advocate: "This is a transparent attempt to intimidate the judiciary and discredit established climate science. The manual cites peer-reviewed work and leading experts. Calling that ‘bias’ is just a tactic to keep courts from hearing facts that threaten fossil fuel interests."

Mark Tolbert, Talk Radio Host & Legal Commentator: "This is a scandal hiding in plain sight. Activist judges are being handed a woke playbook funded by taxpayers. It’s intellectual corruption, and every judge who uses this manual without questioning its sources is complicit."

The FJC and Justice Kagan’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Jessica Wentz, whose work is cited in the manual, declined to comment when reached.

The attorneys general joining the demand represent Alaska, Florida, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming.