The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to review Suncor Energy v. Boulder highlights a contentious debate: should federal law override state claims related to interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions? This case brings to light the significant yet often understated influence of organizations such as the Environmental Law Institute and the Climate Judiciary Project on federal judicial bodies like the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Consider the controversy if the National Rifle Association contributed a chapter on Second Amendment rights to the FJC’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Such a move would likely provoke outcry from gun control advocates due to the NRA’s clear pro-Second Amendment stance.
Similarly, concerns arose about the FJC’s “climate science” chapter, prompting 27 state attorneys general, led by West Virginia’s JB McCuskey, and the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, helmed by Reps. Jim Jordan and Darrell Issa, to challenge its impartiality. They argued that the chapter undermined judicial integrity and Supreme Court precedents.
Congress established the FJC in 1967 to serve as the judiciary’s research and education arm, emphasizing neutrality. Critics assert that the climate science chapter, allegedly biased toward “climate change” plaintiffs, conflicted with this mission.
On February 6, 2026, Judge Robin Rosenberg, FJC’s director, announced the chapter’s removal from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition, citing bias concerns. The controversy persists as the chapter remains on the National Academies’ website. Critics argue that its removal there is necessary to maintain objectivity.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and 21 others petitioned the National Academies to delete the chapter, emphasizing that taxpayer funds should not support politically charged content. Knudsen warned that presenting biased theories as neutral facts could compromise judicial impartiality.
The chapter suggests that climate change impacts will worsen with accumulating GHGs, a claim debated in scientific circles. It also presents climate projections as possibilities rather than certainties, potentially undermining the need for concrete evidence in climate litigation.
Authored by Jessica Wentz of Columbia Law School and Radley Horton of Columbia University, the chapter supports litigation against fossil fuel companies. Wentz and Horton, noted for their advocacy in climate change lawsuits, raise questions about the chapter’s neutrality.
Their affiliations, including Wentz’s role with Earthjustice and Burger’s advisory position at Sher Edling, which litigates climate cases, reveal potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that such biases could influence legal outcomes by presenting one-sided arguments to judges without rebuttal.
These controversies underscore the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for expert testimony, as established by the Supreme Court’s Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision and its successors like General Electric Co. v. Joiner and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. These cases emphasize the need for reliability and relevance in expert evidence, a standard the controversial chapter is accused of violating.
Original Story at www.washingtonexaminer.com