(The Center Square) – The Federal Judicial Center, the judiciary’s research and education branch, provided a manual for judges based on policies preferential to climate activists, critics said.
The Federal Judicial Center, which received nearly $35 million in taxpayer funds from Congress in fiscal year 2025, provided the federal courts with research on best practices for running a jury or courtroom efficiently. The manual in question is meant to assist judges in understanding scientific facts regarding cases but critics suggested the manual provides a biased narrative.
Across the country, judges have heard arguments in lawsuits attempting to make oil and gas companies pay billions of dollars over the impacts of climate change. In one trial, which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, a jury awarded a Louisiana parish $744 million from energy company Chevron over damages related to coastal erosion.
The advice in the manual could lead to rulings in favor of climate activists across the country, critics said. West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams said the manual relies on a one-sided perspective focused on climate change rather than neutral facts.
“The manual is sort of permeated with a preference for institutional, committee-based work,” Williams said, “Often with the imprimatur of certain governments. And I think that then produces outcomes that tend to lean toward preferred political perspectives.”
Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said extra content was added to the manual, compared to previous versions, pushing left-leaning politicized environmental litigation.
“What we’re seeing here is groups that are funded by some of the deepest left-wing dark money pockets out there, the same people funding the same litigation, and now coming at the courts from a different angle,” Severino said. “That is a real concern.”
Michael Fragoso, a partner at Torridon Law, pointed out how through the manual judges are intentionally being told to look favorably upon the kinds of claims that are being brought by climate activists.
“It’s hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate effort to use the Federal Judicial Center to affect the course of litigation by convincing the judges to take one side ahead of time,” Fragoso said.
Twenty-two state attorneys general called on the U.S. House and Senate to investigate the Federal Judicial Center’s ties to climate activism. In January, the House Judiciary Committee opened a separate investigation into an environmental law group’s influence on federal judges.
“These efforts appear to have the underlying goal of predisposing federal judges in favor of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the manufacturing, marketing, use, or sale of fossil-fuel products,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
