A report from the American Energy Institute is raising concerns about potential political bias in a key federal judicial resource, just as a dispute intensifies between its two institutional backers.
The report focuses on the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a widely used guide for federal judges produced jointly by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. At issue is a controversial chapter on climate science that AEI alleges was influenced by left-wing climate advocates with ties to active litigation against the energy industry.
The Federal Judicial Center, the research arm of the federal judiciary, has removed the climate chapter from its version of the manual. However, the National Academies, which co-publishes the manual, has declined to follow suit and continues publishing the full version online.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican state attorneys general have called on the National Academies to remove the climate chapter, arguing that it presents disputed legal theories as settled science. AEI CEO Jason Isaac said the organization 'allowed activist-aligned climate theories and undisclosed litigation conflicts to be embedded in a reference manual relied upon by federal judges, then refused to remove the material even after the Federal Judicial Center stepped back from it.'
AEI's report alleges that the manual repeatedly cites experts with direct ties to plaintiff-side climate litigation without disclosing those connections. Isaac argued that 'a taxpayer-funded institution that presents itself as a neutral scientific authority should not be laundering the legal theories of climate litigators into judicial guidance.'
The organization also points to funding concerns, noting that several senior leaders within the National Academies have records of exclusively supporting Democratic political candidates. AEI argues this raises questions about ideological balance in an organization tasked with providing neutral scientific guidance.
The House Judiciary Committee has opened an inquiry into whether outside groups, including the Environmental Law Institute's Climate Judiciary Project, sought to influence how judges handle climate-related cases.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive defenders of the National Academies emphasize that the manual represents rigorous scientific methodology developed through a collaborative process. National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt has defended the organization's approach, stating that the manual was developed using the process jointly developed by the Academy and the Federal Judicial Center for the fourth edition.
Climate scientists and progressive legal scholars argue that attribution science, which links specific weather events to human-caused climate change, represents settled mainstream science. They note that the manual reflects the scientific consensus as understood by leading institutions, not political advocacy.
Environmental law experts aligned with plaintiff-side climate litigation argue that the manual simply presents peer-reviewed science and that concerns about bias are being raised by industry-aligned organizations seeking to undermine climate accountability cases. The Climate Judiciary Project, referenced in congressional inquiry, has emphasized providing judges with accurate scientific information to evaluate complex cases.
Progressive critics also note that attacks on the National Academies' credibility come at a time when scientific institutions face ongoing pressure from political actors seeking to contest established climate science.
What the Numbers Show
According to AEI's report, the National Academies received approximately $200 million in federal funding in 2024, representing about 74% of its external funding. The organization also maintains financial relationships with various foundations, including those involved in climate advocacy.
The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is in its fourth edition. The Federal Judicial Center has removed the climate chapter from its version, while the National Academies continues to publish the full manual including the disputed chapter.
The controversy coincides with a growing wave of climate liability lawsuits against energy companies, with cases pending in multiple federal jurisdictions. These lawsuits frequently rely on attribution science to link specific weather events to fossil fuel emissions.
The Bottom Line
The dispute over the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence highlights broader tensions between scientific institutions and political actors over how complex climate science should be presented in judicial settings. The National Academies has rejected calls to remove the chapter, maintaining that its process was rigorous and independent.
The House Judiciary Committee's inquiry into outside influence on judicial education continues. Critics from both sides have raised concerns about the potential for institutional bias, though the National Academies maintains its commitment to scientific integrity.
What remains clear is that as climate litigation increases, the question of what information judges rely on to evaluate complex scientific claims will remain contested terrain. The manual, used as a reference for understanding scientific evidence in court, sits at the intersection of science, law, and politics.