Climate Activists Seek to Influence Judges on Big Oil Litigation Through Taxpayer-Funded Reference Manual

The Federal Judicial Center, a taxpayer-funded nonprofit created by Congress, regularly publishes a manual that is billed as a neutral judicial educational tool to break down complicated scientific topics that may arise in litigation. Yet its most recent edition featured a politically-biased “climate science” section that relied on research from radical left-leaning actors to persuade judges to rule in favor of progressive plaintiffs in climate change cases. 

The climate science chapter of the fourth edition of the FJC's Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence strayed so far from the manual's stated goal of supporting "judges in managing cases involving complex scientific and technical evidence by describing the basic tenets of key scientific fields and by providing examples of cases in which that evidence has been used,” that a coalition of 27 attorneys general signed a letter urging the FJC to retract the section.

The attorneys general argued that the climate resources "would tip the scales in favor of left-leaning policies that would be the final nail in the coffin of American-produced energy.”  

Judges across America are responsible for hearing cases that set out to financially ruin large energy companies, such as ExxonMobil and Shell Oil Company, for their alleged contributions to climate change. Sher Edling is the leading law firm behind a nationwide climate lawfare campaign, filing dozens of climate cases against fossil fuel companies on behalf of liberal cities and states. 

If firms like Sher Edling succeed in their litigation, the damages would act as an indirect carbon tax against the companies. 

One week after the attorneys general penned their letter, FJC announced it would be omitting the climate chapter from this edition of the manual.

Yet the partner organization, the National Academies, continues to include not only this section in its publication of the manual, but FJC’s branding and logos. 

On the National Academies' website, there is an asterisk next to the climate chapter explaining that "Following the December 31, 2025, publication of the Fourth Edition of Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, on February 6, 2026, the Federal Judicial Center decided to omit the climate science chapter from their website." 

A spokesperson for the National Academies previously told the New York Times that it stands by the climate chapter, per its inclusion, even following FJC’s withdrawal. National Academies is a private, nonprofit organization established under a congressional charter. In 2024 alone, National Academies received more than $200 million in government grants and contracts. The group continues to sell and distribute the manual with the climate chapter. 

Just this week, 24 attorneys general penned a second letter, this time urging the National Academies to similarly remove the climate chapter from the manual. The letter asserts that the chapter violates peer review conditions and fails to provide objective research and information. The group is calling for a federal investigation to determine if the organizations should be barred from receiving federal funding. 

“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund efforts that impartially influence judges. Given multiple opportunities, NASEM [National Academies] and NSF [National Science Foundation] still refuse to take responsibility for publishing a biased climate science manual violating their public commitments and legal obligations," Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said in a statement. "The organizations producing these manuals and pushing their climate agendas on judges must be investigated and all funding to them should stop."

Judges and litigators with a historic bias against fossil fuel companies played central roles in the creation of the manual. The National Academies, for example, hosted a workshop in 2021 to discuss how to make the fourth edition more "accessible" to judges who are apprehensive about climate activism. 

D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel, who was involved in the planning, said "many of these cases are going to come before judges who are skeptical, and … our challenge is to figure out how to present this [climate] evidence in a way that is credible." 

He continued, insisting that the Fourth Edition must "take this problem [climate change] very, very seriously… if we want it to have an impact on judges," because "the question is… how do we educate them in a credible way… that they will accept and open their minds to looking at the science. It's very tricky."

Further, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton authored the "Reference Guide on Climate Science." 

Wentz is a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. The school's "core mission … is to develop and promulgate legal techniques to combat the climate crisis and advance climate justice." She is also associated with the Climate Judiciary Project, a group that is currently being investigated by the House Judiciary Committee for allegedly "improperly influencing federal judges on environment-related cases."

In the manual, Wentz and Horton cite Michael Burger, noting his "insights and helpful feedback." Burger, however, is Of Counsel at Sher Edling, and if successful in its litigation, the firm will make millions of dollars from the settlements. 

FJC, for its part, not only receives taxpayer funds to execute its mission, but also accepts gifts and donations. To create the manual, the group, for example, took more than $120,000 from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which gives millions of dollars to groups bent on advocating far-left policies, including $131 million in grants to the New Venture Fund and $2.7 million to the Tides Center. 

Dark money groups — such as the New Venture Fund and the Tides Center — funnel significant funds to radical left-leaning organizations, and according to 990 forms previously obtained by National Review, donate millions to Sher Edling. 

FJC, National Academies, Sher Edling, and Tatel did not respond to National Review's request for comment by the time of publication.