Judicial Embeddedness: The Role of Ideology and Culture in Environmental Judicial Politics

• In Event: 30810 - Environmental Policymaking in Uncertain Times

Abstract

Although formally impartial, there is no sociological reason to assume that federal judges transcend political ideology or the broader structuring effects of culture in the decisions they issue. This is particularly true in an increasingly polarized judiciary and for highly partisan issues like environmental protection. Drawing on original data assembled on over 4,500 federal rulings from U.S. District courts focused on environmental conflicts, we show that, on average, more conservative judges are less likely to rule in favor of plaintiffs in environmental civil suits, robust to a wide variety of indicators of judicial ideology. We also show, however, that this effect is driven by (a) conflicts with environmental non-profit plaintiffs that are (b) focused on non-conservation legal disputes (e.g. disputes over hazardous waste or toxic pollution). There is little-to-no evidence of an effect of judicial ideology in cases with federal government or firm plaintiffs or for legal conflicts focused on land use and conservation. Beyond obvious relevance for policy and legal strategy by environmental advocates, our findings call attention to the ways that social structures, like cultural constructions of nature, invisibly shape environmental politics and policymaking even in ostensibly impartial institutions like the courts.

Authors

• Chris M. Rea, Brown University

• Cordelia Van der Veer, The Ohio State University