Instead of serving as a neutral and objective resource for federal judges and staff, it read as if it were a plaintiff brief in a climate lawfare suit.
Texas Insider Report: WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, Mike Lee (R-Utah), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) sent a letter to Federal Judicial Center (FJC) Director Judge Robin Rosenberg raising concerns that the FJC’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence does not meet the standard of a neutral judicial resource. The letter in particular cited the Manual’s presentation of disputed scientific claims as settled fact without acknowledging competing models.
Below are highlights and excerpts from the letter:
“As reference materials circulated to federal judges and staff, the content should reflect a balanced, transparent, and rigorous evidentiary standard—citing peer-reviewed science and a general consensus where appropriate and identifying contested or evolving areas of science as needed. But the Chapter at issue did no such thing. Instead of serving as a neutral and objective resource for federal judges and staff, it read as if it were a plaintiff brief in a climate lawfare suit.
“Though the falsities and weaknesses that pervade the Chapter are too numerous to list here in their entirety, it is deeply problematic for the FJC to circulate a chapter that presents disputed scientific assertions as settled, relies heavily on politically mediated sources, and offers prescriptive conclusions without the safeguards that normally accompany the admission and testing of expert evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”).
“The material presented in the Chapter was designed to influence judicial decision-making in ways that extend beyond the proper role of judiciary education by injecting policy preferences into judicial education. Such behavior represents the precise opposite of the federal judiciary, which has been mandated to apply the law to the facts presented.”
“Though the falsities and weaknesses that pervade the Chapter are too numerous to list here in their entirety, it is deeply problematic for the FJC to circulate a chapter that presents disputed scientific assertions as settled, relies heavily on politically mediated sources, and offers prescriptive conclusions without the safeguards that normally accompany the admission and testing of expert evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”).
“The material presented in the Chapter was designed to influence judicial decision-making in ways that extend beyond the proper role of judiciary education by injecting policy preferences into judicial education. Such behavior represents the precise opposite of the federal judiciary, which has been mandated to apply the law to the facts presented.”
Read the full letter and the requested answers regarding the Manual's content here.
