When Politics Enters the Science: The Fight Over What Judges Should Know

The courts routinely deal with questions that judges cannot answer through legal precedent alone. What caused an environmental disaster? How reliable is a particular scientific test? What does the available research tell us about a disputed health risk? When those questions arise, judges often turn to scientific experts and reference materials to help them understand complicated evidence.

That process is now at the center of an unusual controversy involving the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the Federal Judicial Center, and a chapter about climate science that was written to help judges evaluate scientific evidence.

The chapter was included in the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a long-standing resource used by federal judges. After criticism from Republican attorneys general, the Federal Judicial Center removed the climate chapter from its version of the manual. The National Academies continued to make the chapter available.

Months later, President Donald Trump entered the dispute, ordering a review that could potentially put federal funding to the National Academies at risk.

The controversy raises a question that extends far beyond climate policy. What happens when political officials begin challenging the scientific information available to judges?

A Manual Designed to Help Judges Understand Science

The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is not a collection of laws or judicial rulings. It is a reference resource intended to help judges evaluate scientific and technical evidence presented in court.

The fourth edition was published in December 2025 by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academies. It covers subjects ranging from eyewitness identification and statistics to computer science, artificial intelligence, epidemiology, toxicology, and climate science.

The climate chapter was written by Jessica Wentz, a climate law scholar at Columbia Law School, and Radley Horton, a climate scientist at Columbia University. The chapter explains the basic principles of climate science, the methods researchers use to study climate change, the role of statistical analysis and climate models, and how scientific evidence can be applied to questions of causation and harm in litigation.

The National Academies’ published version remains available online. It describes the chapter as a guide intended to help judges evaluate the admissibility and weight of expert testimony and documentary evidence involving climate science.

The chapter was not a judicial ruling telling judges how to decide climate cases. It was a reference document explaining the underlying science and methods that might appear in litigation.

Why the Chapter Became Controversial

The controversy began with complaints from Republican attorneys general who argued that the climate chapter was not an objective scientific reference but instead reflected a particular view of climate change and could disadvantage fossil fuel companies in litigation.

In February 2026, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a coalition of 21 Republican attorneys general in asking the National Academies to remove the chapter. The attorneys general argued that the material threatened judicial neutrality and accused the authors and organizations connected to the project of having conflicts of interest.

Their concerns did not come out of nowhere. Climate litigation has become an increasingly important battleground, with cities, states, and other plaintiffs pursuing lawsuits against fossil fuel companies over alleged contributions to climate-related harms. Companies have vigorously disputed those claims.

The attorneys general therefore argued that judges should not receive a reference document that they believed could influence how courts evaluate climate science.

There is a legitimate question buried in that criticism. Scientific reference materials used by judges should be rigorous and impartial. If a resource is presented as neutral but actually advocates for one side of a legal dispute, that would be a serious problem.

But the existence of a controversial conclusion does not by itself demonstrate that a scientific reference is biased. Determining that requires examining how the material was produced, who reviewed it, what evidence it relies upon, and whether competing scientific perspectives were fairly represented.

The Federal Judicial Center Pulled the Chapter

The Federal Judicial Center ultimately removed the climate chapter from the version of the manual available through its website in February.

That decision was significant because the manual is associated with the federal judiciary and is intended as a resource for judges throughout the country.

The National Academies did not take the same step. Its online version of the fourth edition continues to contain the climate chapter.

The difference between the two institutions is important. Removing the chapter from the Federal Judicial Center’s version does not mean a court has ruled that the science contained in the chapter is false. Nor does it establish that the chapter was improperly written.

It means that the judiciary’s research and education arm decided not to include the chapter in its publicly available version of the manual.

That distinction has largely disappeared in some of the political discussion surrounding the controversy.

The Fight Escalated Beyond the Chapter

The dispute might have remained a relatively obscure argument among attorneys, scientists, and judicial scholars if it had ended there.

Instead, the controversy continued.

E&E News reported that Republican attorneys general subsequently asked the National Academies to remove the chapter from its own website. The organization did not do so.

The controversy also became part of a larger political fight over organizations that provide scientific and legal education concerning climate change.

ProPublica reported in May that congressional Republicans were investigating the Climate Judiciary Project, an initiative designed to educate judges about climate science and its relevance to the law. The investigation focused on allegations that organizations involved in climate education had improperly attempted to influence judges.

ProPublica’s reporting also examined a separate judicial education program at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. That program had received support from fossil fuel interests and offered judges educational material that questioned aspects of climate science and the use of climate attribution evidence in court.

The existence of that separate program does not prove that either side is improperly influencing judges. It does, however, demonstrate how complicated the issue has become.

There are competing efforts to educate judges about scientific questions, and organizations on different sides of climate litigation have financial, ideological, or professional interests in how those questions are understood.

The President Enters the Dispute

The controversy reached a new level in July when President Trump called for a federal review of the National Academies’ work.

Reuters reported that Trump described the climate material as “discredited” and ordered federal suspension and debarment officials to review what he characterized as improper conduct.

E&E News reported that the move could potentially threaten federal funding for the National Academies, one of the country’s most prominent institutions for providing independent scientific advice.

The National Academies responded that it remained committed to providing independent and objective scientific advice and that its activities are designed around scientific rigor, transparency, and independence.

The significance of the president’s intervention goes beyond the climate chapter itself. The National Academies has spent more than a century serving as an independent source of scientific expertise for the federal government and the public.

If federal funding can be threatened because an administration disagrees with scientific material produced by an institution, scientists and research organizations may reasonably wonder whether future work could face similar political pressure.

Scientific Independence Is Bigger Than Climate Change

It is possible to believe that the climate chapter should have been reviewed more carefully without believing that politicians should determine what scientific information judges receive.

It is also possible to believe that climate science is well established while still demanding transparency about the authors, funding, methodology, and review process behind materials used by courts.

Those positions are not mutually exclusive.

The larger issue is whether scientific expertise can remain independent when the conclusions produced by that expertise have political and economic consequences.

The question could arise in almost any field. A future administration might disagree with research concerning pharmaceuticals, environmental contamination, artificial intelligence, public health, energy technology, or emerging diseases. If political disagreement becomes sufficient reason to threaten funding or remove scientific reference material, researchers could face pressure to anticipate political reactions rather than simply follow the evidence.

That would create a problem regardless of which political party occupies the White House.

Courts Need Science, But Science Needs Independence

Judges are not scientists. They are not expected to conduct original climate research, evaluate laboratory samples themselves, or independently reproduce scientific studies.

They rely on experts, scientific literature, government agencies, professional organizations, and reference materials to understand complicated evidence.

That does not mean judges must accept scientific claims uncritically. The legal system has established procedures for challenging expert testimony, questioning methodology, examining evidence, and determining whether scientific opinions are sufficiently reliable to be considered.

Those mechanisms are preferable to allowing political officials to decide in advance which scientific conclusions judges should encounter.

The appropriate response to concerns about scientific bias is rigorous scrutiny. Authors should disclose relevant interests. Sources should be examined. Methodologies should be challenged. Competing evidence should be considered. Review processes should be transparent.

Those principles apply whether the scientific conclusion is politically popular or politically inconvenient.

The Real Test Is Whether Evidence Can Survive Scrutiny

The controversy over the climate chapter is unlikely to end soon. Climate-related lawsuits will continue to generate disputes over scientific evidence, causation, damages, and responsibility. Political officials will continue to challenge organizations they believe are advancing policies or ideas they oppose.

That is precisely why the independence of scientific institutions matters.

Science does not become reliable because politicians approve of its conclusions. It becomes reliable when evidence can be examined, challenged, reproduced, debated, and subjected to rigorous standards.

The same principle should apply to scientific information used in court.

Americans do not have to agree about climate policy to agree that judges should have access to reliable information. They do not have to agree about the conclusions of a particular scientific study to agree that researchers should be free to publish findings without fearing political retaliation.

The controversy surrounding the National Academies therefore represents something larger than a dispute over one chapter in one manual. It is a test of whether scientific expertise can remain independent when the answers it provides become politically consequential.

That is a question worth watching, because the next scientific controversy before the courts may have nothing to do with climate change at all.

—Greg Collier

When Politics Enters the Science: The Fight Over What Judges Should Know