What's happened
The Federal Judicial Center has deleted a chapter on climate change from its manual after objections from Republican-led attorneys general, citing concerns over scientific consensus and perceived bias. The move follows political pressure and debates over the role of science in legal proceedings, impacting judicial understanding of climate issues.
What's behind the headline?
The removal of the climate change chapter from the Federal Judicial Center's manual underscores the politicization of scientific evidence in the U.S. judiciary. The objections from Republican attorneys general reveal a strategic effort to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change, framing it as a contested issue rather than established fact. This move risks undermining judges' ability to interpret scientific data accurately, especially as courts become more central to climate policy. The decision also highlights how political influence can shape judicial resources, potentially skewing legal understanding and rulings on environmental issues. The broader implications suggest a future where scientific literacy in courts may be compromised, affecting climate litigation and policy outcomes. This development signals a concerning trend where scientific facts are contested for political gain, which could delay or weaken climate action through the judiciary. The next steps will likely involve further politicization of judicial education and possible challenges to scientific evidence in climate-related cases, impacting the rule of law and environmental policy in the U.S.
What the papers say
The New York Times reports that the Federal Judicial Center removed the climate change chapter after objections from Republican attorneys general, who argued it treated human influence as a settled fact. The article highlights the political context, noting that the chapter was part of the 'Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,' which aims to assist judges in understanding complex scientific issues. Ars Technica adds that the objections focused on the chapter's acceptance of climate science, with critics claiming it was biased and treated contested science as fact. Both sources emphasize the political pressure behind the removal, illustrating how partisan interests are influencing judicial resources and scientific education. The New York Times quotes Judge Robin Rosenberg's statement that the chapter was removed without further explanation, while Ars Technica details the objections from state attorneys general, who argued the chapter presented a one-sided view of climate science. This contrast underscores the ongoing debate over scientific neutrality in legal contexts and the impact of political interference on judicial education.
How we got here
The Federal Judicial Center, responsible for providing resources to judges, included a chapter on climate change in its reference manual. This chapter was intended to help judges interpret scientific evidence, especially after the 2024 Supreme Court decision limiting deference to federal agencies. However, Republican attorneys general from several states objected, claiming the chapter treated human influence on climate as a settled fact, which they argued was politically biased. Their objections led to the chapter's removal, reflecting ongoing political battles over climate science in the judiciary and the influence of partisan perspectives on legal education.
Go deeper
More on these topics