The integrity of the judiciary is being called into question as concerns over conflicts of interest and bias in the legal system continue to mount.
A coalition of 24 state attorneys general, led by Montana's Attorney General, has urged the Trump Administration to scrutinize federal funding for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), citing pervasive left-wing bias in its scientific expertise.
The attorneys general specifically pointed to the climate science section of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which was created to help lawyers and judges understand and manage complex scientific and technical evidence in court cases.
They argued that the manual's preparation was funded by groups that support climate-related litigation, written by scholars who lack strong expertise in climate science and have connections to advocacy groups involved in such cases, and was influenced by a lawyer representing climate plaintiffs.
President Donald Trump has ordered a comprehensive review of NASEM's conduct, and the National Academies receives over $200 million annually in federal funding.
The review comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in a case related to climate change litigation, and conservative groups have argued that Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the case due to her involvement in the creation of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.
Kagan wrote the foreword to the manual, and her impartiality has been questioned, particularly given her history of conflicts of interest.
In 2010, Kagan cheered the passage of Obamacare, despite US law requiring justices to recuse themselves from cases in which they have expressed an opinion on the merits of the case.
Further evidence of Kagan's conflict of interest emerged in an email exchange with Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, in which she expressed enthusiasm for the pending health-care vote.
The incident highlights the need for stronger penalties for judges who fail to recuse themselves when they have conflicts of interest, and raises questions about the independence of the judiciary in the face of such bias.
