The defining feature of the American judicial system is that every litigant walks into the courtroom with the belief that they will have a fair shot to present their case. That foundational principle is under assault. Several weeks ago, The Oversight Project published a report highlighting the threat to judicial independence posed by the left-wing climate plaintiffs’ bar. We highlighted how the Federal Judicial Center, the taxpayer-funded “think tank” for Article III federal judges, exploited its institutional credibility to predispose judges toward pro-plaintiff positions in climate litigation. The Supreme Court held more than 30 years ago, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, that judges must act as gatekeepers for scientific expert testimony and assess whether proposed testimony reflects genuine scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact. A December 2025 publication by the FJC puts the longstanding role of judicial gatekeeping at risk. In its role as the “research and education agency of the judicial branch of the U.S. government” the FJC recently published the fourth edition of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the foreword of the Reference Manual and praised the publication, noting that the “instruction that the manual offers in scientific principles and methods can improve the quality of judicial decision making.” Our report focused on significant problems with the Manual’s Reference Guide on Climate Science, which presents the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change propaganda as settled scientific fact, and gives climate plaintiffs a roadmap for fulfilling the Daubert standard to have left-wing biased climate “science” entered into judicial proceedings. The Reference Guide on Climate Science lists two Columbia University professors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, as its authors. Wentz and Horton are climate change advocates who have published scholarship and participated in cases that called for the elimination of fossil fuels. Wentz and Horton acknowledge the “insights and helpful feedback provided by” lawyer Michael Burger in drafting the Reference Guide on Climate Science. The Oversight Project’s investigation found, however, that Mr. Burger’s contributions went far beyond the suggested peripheral reviewing role contained in the acknowledgments. We found that the Reference Guide on Climate Science repeatedly cites a 2020 law review article by Burger entitled, “The Law & Science of Climate Change Attribution.” We used a research integrity software to conduct an originality analysis and found that the Reference Guide on Climate Science contains a 23% similarity match and overall similarity index of 33% to Burger’s 2020 paper. Our report outlined instances where whole paragraphs—and nearly whole pages—of the Reference Guide on Climate Science were lifted verbatim from Burger’s 2020 law review article. This level of overlap is not consistent with the acknowledgment of a reviewer who offered occasional comments. It is consistent with a contributor who supplied a significant portion of the chapter’s analytical framework and content. But what makes this overlap so significant is who Burger is outside of academia. Burger is not a disinterested scholar. He is an active litigator on the plaintiff side of the very category of cases for which the Reference Guide on Climate Science purports to offer neutral judicial guidance. Burger notably works at Sher Edling, the law firm that has positioned itself as the coordinating force behind the wave of municipal and state climate liability suits. With his Sher Edling hat on, Burger’s name is literally on the complaints for the plaintiffs with Honolulu, Delaware, and New York City in their lawsuits against energy producers. In each of these cases, Burger’s clients seek to establish precisely the causal chain between fossil fuel production, global warming, and localized harm that the Reference Guide on Climate Science presents as scientifically settled. The scientific conclusions the chapter treats as settled fact are the live issues on which Burger’s clients depend to prevail in court. The Reference Guide on Climate Science, in other words, imports the analytical conclusions of an active plaintiff-side litigator into a reference guide used by the federal judges before whom his cases may appear. None of this is disclosed in the Reference Guide on Climate Science. A judge reading the manual would have no way of knowing that the scholar whose work substantially shaped its content is simultaneously litigating to establish the very propositions the chapter treats as settled science. The FJC has received between $34 million and $35 million per year in federal tax dollars since at least 2023. While House and Senate committees have opened investigations into the FJC’s publication of the Reference Manual on Climate Science, more needs to be done. Climate cases often turn on which side’s asserted facts prevail, and those questions hinge on evaluating expert testimony. By “working the referee” before ever setting foot in court, climate plaintiffs benefit from the massive head start given to them by the Reference Guide. Our system appoints federal judges and gives them the responsibility to make the hard decisions of fact and law in the cases before them. The FJC’s decision to delete the Reference Guide on Climate Science months after publication is an inadequate half measure considering it was in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence for months and is easily accessible on the internet today. Congress is right to investigate and should defund the FJC to return the hard work of judicial decision making back to judges, where it belongs. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is touting the arrest of an illegal alien in New York who allegedly set fire to several cars, an arrest they say was made possible by the cooperation of local authorities with federal immigration enforcement. On May 10, the Nassau County Police, in cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Elder Lopez-Avalos, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who allegedly set fire to 10 cars, including in the vicinity of a daycare center. On May 12, Lopez-Avalos was taken into ICE custody. “Thanks to ICE and CBP law enforcement, this criminal illegal alien charged with arson was arrested by ICE on May 12,” DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said in a statement of the arrest. NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK: @ICEgov has ARRESTED Elder Lopez-Avalos, a criminal illegal alien ARSONIST from Guatemala.Lopez-Avalos set fire to 10 cars in Freeport — and several of the acts of arson took place in a parking lot near a children’s center.Thanks to cooperation with… pic.twitter.com/HVeSxESGCg— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) May 15, 2026  “This pyromaniac set fire to 11 cars and was a clear public safety threat. If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, we will arrest you and deport you,” she added. Although DHS applauds Nassau County’s cooperation with ICE in the apprehension of Lopez-Avalos, they are harshly critical of some New York jurisdictions’ non-cooperation with ICE. “Unfortunately, many New York jurisdictions do NOT cooperate with ICE. As of December 1, New York’s failure to honor ICE detainers has resulted in the release of 6,947 criminal illegal aliens since January 20,” the release states. Related PostsVirginia Prosecutor: ‘Sorry,’ but Immigration Law ‘Not Our Job’A controversial Virginia prosecutor apologized to the mother of a daughter slain by an illegal immigrant but still defended his county’s sanctuary policy during a contentious House hearing Thursday. “I am deeply sorry for your loss, I say that not only as a prosecutor but as a parent of a daughter,” Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney…Iranian Pleads Guilty to Aiding Illegal Alien With Ties to TerrorismFIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Iranian national Sharon Gohari pleaded guilty on Tuesday to unlawfully smuggling illegal immigrants into the United States—including one with ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—and intentionally receiving child pornography, The Daily Signal has learned. Gohari, a naturalized U.S. citizen who resided alternately in Iran and Nassau County, New York, asked…Congressman Wants to Ban Illegal Aliens From Banking System Amid Possible Trump EOFIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Citing concerns that access to financial services incentivizes illegal immigration and could aid terrorism, Rep. Keith Self, R‑Texas, introduced legislation Thursday that would bar illegal aliens from the U.S. banking system by requiring banks to collect customers’ citizenship or immigration status. “Access to America’s financial system is reserved for those who…

“Mainstream” Democrats are doing a good job right now of telegraphing to America what they plan to do with national power the second they get it back. They plan to make it permanently theirs, by any means necessary. You can be sure that they will be even more maniacally committed to this agenda following the Supreme Court’s 9-0 striking down of Virginia’s absurdly biased redistricting plan that would have effectively locked the GOP entirely out of power despite it being a divided state. Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and her new Democrat majority, who collectively campaigned on the idea of “affordability,” spent their first days in power pushing every loony leftist policy under the sun while doing their best to amass additional power for their party at the local and national levels. They were suddenly impeded because as it turned out their redistricting scheme was so blatantly unconstitutional that it was not only rejected by the Virginia Supreme Court but by a unanimous decision at the Supreme Court of the U.S. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn’t figure out how to finagle that one. These defeats have only fueled the fire of the angry Democratic Party faithful who insist more must be done to rig the system in their favor. And it’s hard to understate just how much the demand for raw, unrepentant power grabbing is becoming the norm on the left side of the political spectrum. At this point, even their dishonest but clever bait-and-switch strategy to seem moderate but rule like Mao is taking a back seat. They just can’t restrain themselves from telling the whole country that their only real governing plan is to restore “democracy” by liquidating the Constitution, destroying the parts of the government they can’t control, and ensuring that elections—for whatever they’ll be worth after that—always go their way. Here’s former Vice President Kamala Harris last week calling for a “no bad ideas brainstorm” that consisted of entirely bad ideas. She said Democrats need to think about abolishing the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court, and adding two new Democrat-dominated states to the union. Kamala Harris is now calling for Democrats to hold a “No Bad Idea Brainstorm” where they discuss:– Abolishing the Electoral College– Packing the Supreme Court– Making Puerto Rico and D.C. states“We’ve got to neutralize these red states from cheating!” pic.twitter.com/23MPJxn7fN— Pat Adams (@PatAdams96) May 14, 2026 That’s quite a plan for America’s future. Obliterate not one, but two of America’s longstanding political institutions that committed the crime of not giving them exactly what they want right now, then add a few more politically friendly states to pad their voting advantage. Notice that these had nothing to do with the economy, or improving America’s standing in the world, or really anything that would even conceivably make our lives better. They aren’t even bothering to make that pitch. This was just a list to describe a blatant power grab, nothing less. Now, one can dismiss this as just Harris’ ham-handed attempt to seem edgy to appeal to Democrat base voters. But I think she did capture the mindset of what is entirely mainstream in her party right now. Sure, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and a few other local leftist darlings are riding high on support for democratic socialism and all that. But a much broader base of Democrats is less concerned with specific redistributive policies and more concerned with power for the sake of power. They want to recapture something that they had until very recently: total institutional, cultural, and political control. The institutions are still mostly theirs, but those have taken a beating in this age of mistrust and decentralization. They were entirely convinced that at this point President Donald Trump would be in a jail cell, his supporters cowed and silenced. It was supposed to be the Age of Obama forever, with the 2016 election being just a disturbing outlier produced by Russian collusion or something. Then 2024 happened, and they saw that they’ve truly lost the ability to just rely on institutional inertia and legacy media to produce the political results they want. They’ve lost the plot, and that’s driving them insane. The “No Kings” protesters are perhaps the best representative of this mindset. They are mostly aging, liberal Boomers used to getting their way in politics, used to being “IT,” but who are increasingly powerless and irrelevant. They don’t really care about “kings” or any of that nonsense. What they are opposed to is a political system that allows their opponents to win and take the country in a different direction. This is what they are rebelling against. Now their aim is to turn the whole nation into California. They want a one-party system where the assumption is that any real challenge to the Left’s dominance can simply be swept aside by last minute shenanigans, institutional deus ex machina. That’s essentially what California Gov. Gavin Newsom said would happen in that state’s governor’s race if somehow two Republicans emerged victorious in the state’s open, jungle primary (which was meant to secure the power of incumbent Democrats, oops). When asked about the possibility of ending up with two Republican candidates for governor and no Democrats, Gavin Newsom responded:“We all have agencies. We can shape the future… I don’t anticipate this need to be the case, but there is a ‘break the glass scenario.’ There’s… pic.twitter.com/b4Glz0neVu— Laura Powell (@LauraPowellEsq) May 15, 2026 When they talk about restoring “democracy,” what they mean is that they want a political system that ensures Democrats simply can’t lose. That the Left has become so open and brazen about its intent to grab power and pull up the drawbridge says a great deal about their respect for elections and “norms.” The American people can’t say they weren’t warned.

Think you own that new car you just bought? Not all of it. As many Americans are learning, Automakers own their data, and they’re trying to dictate who can fix the vehicle when something breaks or even when it just needs regular maintenance. It’s a way to force car and truck owners into expensive dealerships for service. Fortunately, though, a legal fix might be coming. New vehicles today rely so much on electronics and software that many repairs, even relatively simple ones, require using a proprietary computer interface or software just to diagnose an issue. Some cars and trucks even need this rigmarole to determine the optimal schedule for routine maintenance. The results have been devastating for independent repair shops that handle most of the post-warranty automotive work across America. Almost two-thirds of these small businesses have trouble making what were previously simple repairs because of inaccessible data or software. Over the last five years, nearly 30% of these small businesses have reported a decline in the number of vehicles they’re able to service due to this issue. Two out of every five shops have more difficulty getting parts from dealers, while one out of every four have no access to the electronic tools needed to service customers’ vehicles. Consequently, more than half of small automotive repair businesses say they’re forced to send a customer about once a week to a dealership. The customer loses by having to pay more for the same work, and the small business loses a sale. Today, data is a tool all its own, and this move by automakers is just a high-tech version of an old game. For years, manufacturers have played tricks like inventing and patenting fasteners—which no one else could buy. If customers and repair shops couldn’t open a product, whether a washing machine or a smartphone, then the customer’s only option was to pay whatever the manufacturer charged. While property rights, including intellectual property, are cornerstones of America’s dynamic and innovative economy, they shouldn’t be conflated with an artificially uneven playing field. Protecting proprietary engine management software is not the same as adding the equivalent of a password to a car’s diagnostic computer. Some automakers have erected digital walls around the data in their customers’ vehicles, treating that information like a trade secret, even though it really belongs to the person who bought the car or truck. There has been a bipartisan push in Congress this year to address the problem via the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act. The legislation would essentially distinguish between protecting innovators’ intellectual property (IP) rights and automakers’ misuse of IP law to force customers into dealership repair facilities while crushing competition. Some industry groups argue the REPAIR Act is unnecessary because relevant vehicle data is already available through existing agreements and portals. But then why are so many independent shops having to send cars to dealers each week because they can’t access vehicle data to even make a diagnosis? This isn’t about preserving the quality of work being done either. Independent shops can be held liable for faulty repairs just like dealers. Many states even mandate minimum warranties on common repairs, regardless of who does the work. Arguments over the right to repair aren’t about safety but about establishing monopoly pricing power and, in the case of the automotive industry, forcing out small businesses from a highly competitive market where, historically, independent shops complete 80% of out-of-warranty repairs because dealerships are about 36% more expensive for customers. And the problem is getting worse as vehicles become less mechanical and increasingly electronic. By 2035, 155 million vehicle owners will likely be impacted by limited choices for auto repair, increasing their average annual repair bill by about $200. That’s well over $30 billion in aggregate higher bills for vehicle owners. Rural communities, with fewer options, are hit especially hard. While dealerships will receive a windfall, independent shops will continue losing revenue and jobs, not to mention the 4 million manufacturing jobs at risk in the aftermarket car parts industry. By 2035, the 350,000 independent businesses in that industry—the largest segment of American manufacturing—are expected to see their combined share of automotive parts sales slip from 55% to just 35%. Competition gives American families more choices, better service, and lower prices, but it requires a level playing field. In this case, that means reasonable access to repair information so that owners can decide for themselves where to have their vehicles serviced. This is about increasing competition, not concentration of power among special interests. ©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The Justice Department has established an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of nearly $1.8 billion that could pay people who were targets of “lawfare” or weaponization of federal agencies. The funding is the result of a settlement in the case of President Donald J. Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, where the president and members of his family sued the agency over the release of their tax returns. “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a public statement. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress,” Blanche added. The Anti-Weaponization Fund will have the authority to issue formal apologies and monetary relief to individuals who bring a claim before a soon-to-be-created commission. The five-member commission will review claims to determine whether someone is entitled to an apology or monetary damages. The attorney general will appoint the members, one of whom will be appointed in consultation with congressional leaders. The Justice Department’s announcement says: “Submission of a claim is voluntary. There are no partisan requirements to file a claim.” The fund will receive $1.776 billion from the Judgment Fund, which allows the Justice Department to settle and pay cases. In addition, the fund will send a quarterly report to the attorney general outlining who received relief. The fund shall cease processing claims no later than Dec. 15, 2028, according to the Justice Department. Any amount left over will revert to the federal government. In the Trump v. IRS case, the president, his son Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, LLC, sued the Treasury Department and the IRS in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida following the leak of their tax returns. As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs will receive a formal apology but no monetary payment or damages. Also as part of the settlement, the plaintiffs agreed to the establishment of the Anti-Weaponization Fund in exchange for dropping pending litigation regarding the 2022 FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and the Justice Department’s investigation into a debunked conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government. The Justice Department says the fund is based in part on a legal precedent set by the Obama administration in the Keepseagle case. The Obama administration created a $760 million fund to redress various claims alleging racism against the federal government over a period of decades.