Judicial Ideology & Federal Environmental Protections: A Study of U.S. Courts of Appeals

• In Event: Judges and Courts as Governing Institutions

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between judicial ideology and the directionality of court rulings on federal environmental protections issued by U.S. Courts of Appeals. It contends that judges, as elite political and juridical authorities, are not immune to the pressures of ideology and that their personal policy preferences are embedded in their rulings, even in matters concerning federal environmental statutes. Drawing on datasets from the Judicial Research Initiative (JuRI), the study compares the Giles, Hettinger, and Peppers (GHP) measure of judicial ideology with the directional outcomes of appellate rulings. Cases lacking clear directionality are excluded to focus on instances where ideological influences on judicial discretion are most likely to be present. By comparing judges' GHP scores with the ideological orientation of appellate rulings, this study aims to ascertain whether and to what degree judicial ideology contributes to shaping the Court's stance on federal environmental regulations and nationwide environmental policy. The directional scale utilized in this context represents support or opposition to federal environmental regulations, rather than conforming to a conventional liberal-conservative ideological spectrum. The analysis is limited to judges who authored appellate rulings, as their opinions represent the majority decision of the court. Dissent is taken into account for a comprehensive analysis of judicial decision-making on environmental matters. Furthermore, this study contributes to advancing the scholarly understanding of judicial behavior at a time when the environmental political questions posed by anthropogenic climate change are entering U.S. courtrooms and being articulated as justiciable disputes.

Author

• Robert T.F. Downes, University of Connecticut