The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), a research and educational agency designed to provide objective guidance to the U.S. judiciary, has come under fire for including a climate science guide influenced by partisan activists. Intended to help federal judges navigate complex scientific evidence in court, the manual’s climate section drew criticism after revealing strong ties to left-leaning advocates in its authorship.
The contentious "Reference Guide on Climate Science" was co-written by Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, both affiliated with Columbia University’s climate-related institutions. Wentz operates as a non-resident senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, while Horton is a professor at Columbia’s Climate School. Critics have highlighted Wentz’s activist background and her public statements framing skepticism about climate policy as misinformation—a term often used in political contexts to curb dissent.
The FJC originally included citations and footnotes referencing prominent progressive climate activists and legal advocates within the guide, which raised questions about the manual’s neutrality given its official role in the judiciary. Following the backlash, the Center withdrew the climate section from the manual, and congressional leaders indicated they might pursue reforms to prevent similar controversies.
Jessica Wentz’s involvement extends beyond authorship; her communications indicate an active role in advancing legal theories that connect “disinformation” campaigns to climate-related harms, which can influence climate litigation. She has expressed enthusiasm about projects analyzing how plaintiffs can legally establish causal links between disinformation and environmental damages, a strategy primarily targeted at fossil fuel companies. Such positions reflect the ongoing politicization of climate science within judicial education.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, co-publisher of the judicial manual alongside the FJC, continues to feature the climate guide on its website despite the controversy. This situation underscores the challenge faced by ostensibly neutral bodies in maintaining impartial standards amid increasingly polarized climate debates.