Judicial Climate Engagement

46 Ecology L.Q., Forthcoming

43 Pages Posted: 18 Jul 2019

Date Written: July 17, 2019


Courts in key climate change cases have abdicated their constitutional responsibility to protect a prejudiced and disenfranchised group (non-voting minors and future generations) and remedy an insidious pathology in public discourse and the political process: the industry-funded climate disinformation campaign. This article posits that the abdication results from courts’ uneasiness about displacing the prerogatives of democratically elected bodies. This uneasiness is misplaced. Court engagement with climate cases would strengthen democracy in accord with widely accepted justifications for countermajoritarian judicial review. This article first describes in detail how courts exhibit a frustrating reticence to accept jurisdiction over cases that present questions relating to core climate policy, such as whether large emitters or fossil fuel producers have common law liability for climate harms and whether the government has a common law or constitutional duty to address climate change. In not a single case raising such claims (and they number well over thirty) has a court permitted the case to proceed to trial. Courts dismiss these claims under the mantle of a variety of justiciability doctrines (standing, political question doctrine, displacement); these doctrines often serve as vessels for courts to exercise judicial restraint and courts’ language and reasoning in the climate cases confirms that the courts are, indeed, motivated by concerns of judicial overreach. The article then offers a positive account for why judicial engagement in the climate cases is consistent with our system of democracy, even as understood by seminal scholars who define relatively narrow boundaries for countermajoritarian judicial review, by situating arguments for judicial review in climate cases within the work of John Hart Ely, Jurgen Habermas, and Frank Michelman.

Keywords: climate change, judicial restraint, countermajoritarian difficulty, climate nuisance, atmospheric trust

JEL Classification: K32

Suggested Citation

Kuh, Katrina Fischer, Judicial Climate Engagement (July 17, 2019). 46 Ecology L.Q., Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3421500 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3421500

Katrina Fischer Kuh (Contact Author)

Pace Law School ( email )

78 North Broadway
White Plains, NY 10603
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics