As the effects of climate change become more severe, the legal drive to hold polluters responsible, safeguard vulnerable communities, and uphold environmental regulations is intensifying. In these legal battles, science plays a crucial role. Since scientific findings cannot present themselves in court, scientists are needed to articulate these results. It is imperative that they convey their research in a clear, responsible, and convincing manner so that the scientific data can be properly understood and utilized in legal proceedings.
In essence, a scientist’s job in the courtroom is to translate—to convert complex findings into understandable and trustworthy information that can aid in delivering justice. The courtroom is a space where significant decisions are made, affecting lives, resource distribution, and accountability. Although judges and juries are knowledgeable, they are likely not experts in climate modeling, sociology, economics, or statistics, which is where scientists come into play.
Translating scientific knowledge into courtroom applications is challenging, and experts who perform this task are facing increasing scrutiny. However, it is crucial to remember that:
- Science belongs in the courts. There is a well-established tradition of incorporating science into legal proceedings;
- Facts belong in the courts. Despite numerous challenges, climate science is robust and can significantly inform decision-making;
- Experts belong in the courts. It is essential for experts to learn how to effectively communicate in legal settings to ensure decision-makers receive the best available information.
Science has been used in the courts for centuries
Historically, science did not always have a place in legal settings. Courts primarily relied on eyewitness accounts, assumptions, and general arguments. The idea of someone testifying about something they hadn’t directly observed was rare until the 18th Century.
This changed in 1782 with a British case, Folkes v. Chadd. The case involved determining if a man-made structure disrupted a harbor’s natural flow. The court called upon John Smeaton, a prominent engineer, to explain the science of tides and hydraulics, despite his not having seen the harbor firsthand. On appeal, the judge ruled that expert opinions are not only admissible but essential when dealing with matters beyond common understanding.
This ruling paved the way for expert testimony to become commonplace, particularly in the United States. However, this change also introduced challenges. By the late 20th Century, courts were often overwhelmed with conflicting expert testimonies, frequently aligned with a specific side rather than the truth.
In 1993, the US Supreme Court addressed this with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The decision assigned judges the role of gatekeepers of scientific evidence, requiring them to apply the Daubert test to evaluate whether methods are testable, peer-reviewed, reliable, and widely accepted in the scientific community. This enhanced rigor demands that scientists clearly communicate their methods and limitations to non-experts.
Attacks on climate science in the courts
Although science has long been used in legal settings, the Trump administration provided an opportunity for the fossil fuel industry to further its agenda against climate science. During this period, several efforts aimed to limit the use of climate science in legal cases.
The Trump administration’s actions systematically eroded scientific integrity when it was most needed in courts. The administration withdrew the United States from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cutting ties with a key source of climate science.
There was an attempt to replace consensus science with a politically motivated Department of Energy report authored by climate skeptics. This report, lacking peer review, was aimed at creating doubt and justifying regulatory rollbacks. The Union of Concerned Scientists contested the report’s working group, which was eventually disbanded, yet a federal court ruled the group violated federal law. Furthermore, the EPA announced plans to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a key policy based on solid science to protect communities. As the executive branch’s scientific foundation weakened, opponents turned their focus toward the judiciary.
Senator Ted Cruz initiated a congressional hearing targeting the Environmental Law Institute’s judicial education programs to prevent judges from accessing scientific education on climate change. These probes continue. Republican attorneys general carried on this campaign, leading to the Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC) decision to remove an extensive climate science chapter from its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, crucial for judges evaluating complex scientific testimony. Although the FJC removed the chapter, it is still accessible through the National Academies.
Overall, these events aim to undermine climate science across government levels, creating obstacles for communities seeking justice in court.
Clear communication isn’t optional
Science is pivotal in cases involving climate liability, environmental justice, and public health; however, its impact hinges on effective communication. Failure in communicating scientific information can result in a failure of justice. So, what steps can scientists take? Here are five tips for presenting science effectively in legal contexts:
1. Speak like a human, not a journal article. Academics are accustomed to writing for peer-reviewed journals, which are often dense and full of caveats. In court, clarity and relatability are key. Simplify language and use analogies carefully. For instance, instead of stating “the anthropogenic signal exceeds the 95% confidence interval,” say “our analysis shows it’s extremely unlikely this warming happened by natural causes alone, like flipping a coin and getting heads 19 times out of 20.” The latter is much easier to grasp.
2. Be thoughtful about communicating uncertainty. For researchers, expressing uncertainty demonstrates credibility and thorough testing. However, in court, “uncertain” can imply doubt. Clearly explain findings in terms the court can apply, highlighting confidence and evidence weight. Understand the case’s evidence standard and how your uncertainty relates to it. Translate results for a legal audience, showing that uncertainty is part of robust science, not a flaw.
3. Prepare to be challenged—because you will. Legal environments are adversarial. Opposing counsel will scrutinize you for inconsistencies or confusion. Preparation is essential. Practice explaining your work under pressure, anticipate difficult questions, and know your limits. If unsure of an answer, admit it. Every PhD holder has faced an oral defense; if yours was challenging, you can manage a courtroom.
4. Be accurate but concise. Scientists are trained to delve into detail, but in court, brevity is crucial. Avoid overwhelming the audience with information. Focus on key points, convey them plainly, and stop once your point is made. Brevity respects the listener and maintains attention.
5. Understand why your science is relevant. Before testifying, ask the lawyer what the court needs to know. Your job is not to teach broadly but to address the specific legal issue. Stay focused and ensure everything you say ties back to the legal question, similar to a glossary of scientific terms for a legal audience.
Be ready when science is called to the stand
Science plays a crucial role in the courtroom. As climate litigation grows, the demand for well-prepared, clear, and credible scientific voices is greater than ever. The challenges are significant, but so are the opportunities. By improving communication, experts can help ensure that courts receive the best available science, presented accurately and understandably.
If you’re interested in entering this field or enhancing your skills, consider reaching out to the Science Hub for Climate Litigation. This hub offers skill-sharing, resources, and community support to help experts effectively engage in legal settings, ensuring that when science testifies, it is ready and the facts are clear.
