Judicial body removes climate section from manual after media scrutiny

The research arm of the country’s federal judiciary announced it would remove a controversial climate-centric section from the latest edition of its influential scientific-evidence guide for judges, reportedly following media coverage that highlighted sourcing accused of liberal bias.

The Federal Judicial Center regularly publishes its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, and observers noted that the climate policy chapter of its fourth edition, released on December 31, included several pages of content critics alleged had been gleaned from left-wing climate advocates and were indoctrinating judges rather than educating them.

Late Friday, according to sources, a federal judge who leads the center at a government building in the capital wrote to a regional attorney general alerting him that the climate policy chapter has been removed from the guide. The judge was reportedly appointed by a previous administration.

Two state attorneys general from the interior regions recently led efforts to get the legislature’s judiciary committee to expand its probe on climate-related policy influence on federal judges to include the contents of the manual, according to reports.

“In response to your letter dated January 29, 2026, I write to inform you that the Federal Judicial Center has omitted the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition,” the judge reportedly wrote, linking to the Federal Judicial Center’s webpage introducing the guide.

The approximately 1,600-page guide was released at the beginning of the year and allegedly included several citations and footnotes to climate change activists and proponents, including a prominent climatologist and an environmental law expert.

When media outlets accessed the webpage, the download link for the manual still listed it as 1,682 pages long — but the document appeared reduced to 1,662 pages, suggesting the removal had been implemented.

A footnote in the appendix indicated that “The FJC omitted ‘Reference Guide on Climate Science’ on 2/6/2026.”

In a statement, one of the regional attorneys general said his office led the charge in calling for the judicial center to withdraw “an inappropriate new addition to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence that deals with ‘climate science’.”

“We have just received notice that, because of our efforts, the chapter is being removed,” the official said, calling the news a “win for impartiality in our judiciary” and for his region’s residents.

He also praised his colleague’s “incredible work” on the effort, as well as that of other state-level prosecutors who pressed for oversight of the situation.

“Huge win,” the other attorney general reportedly reacted on social media. “Proud to work on this with [colleague] and our conservative state prosecutors.”

After the change was made, the president of a conservative watchdog organization called the original version “political pamphleteering for the climate scam,” and a major business publication’s editorial board wrote that “public accounting of how that [chapter] happened would be useful.”

The incident reflects ongoing tensions within the nation’s judicial system over the appropriate scope of scientific guidance provided to judges, particularly on politically sensitive topics like climate change. Critics argue such guidance can introduce bias into legal proceedings, while supporters contend that judges need access to current scientific understanding to make informed decisions in complex cases.