Climate Change Litigation, Obsession and Expertise: Reflecting on the Scholarly Response toMassachusetts v.EPA

Climate change litigation is an obsessive preoccupation for many legal scholars. Three different “narratives” can be identified for why scholars find such litigation important to study: litigation is a response to institutional failure, legal reasoning holds authority, and litigation is a forum for the co‐production of facts and social orders. The nature and consequences of these narratives are considered in the context of the first U . S . Supreme Court “climate change” case— M assachusetts v. EPA (2007). This analysis has implications for both how scholars understand their expertise in this area, and how they should foster it.