BACK TO GREEN GAVELS HOME

OUR METHODOLOGY

Michigan LCV’s Green Gavels tool represents a collaboration between students from the University of Michigan Law School, who volunteered their time to read and analyze cases and write summaries, a panel of Michigan’s most experienced environmental attorneys, who gave feedback to the students and suggested possible scoring decisions, and Michigan LCV staff. The primary consideration when selecting cases and applying gavel ratings was the impact of the decision on conservation and pro-democracy values.

Michigan LCV’s Green Gavels tool represents a collaboration between students from the University of Michigan Law School, who volunteered their time to read and analyze cases and write summaries, a panel of Michigan’s most experienced environmental attorneys, who gave feedback to the students and suggested possible scoring decisions, and Michigan LCV staff. The primary consideration when selecting cases and applying gavel ratings was the impact of the decision on conservation and pro-democracy values.

Case Ratings

Cases will be assigned a Green, Red, or Yellow gavel based on whether the majority decision had a positive, negative, or neutral impact on environmental protection in Michigan.

Criteria to be considered includes:

  1. Was the opinion unanimous?
  2. If not, would the dissent have strengthened environmental protection?
  3. Did the opinion follow or depart from the precedent in a manner which strengthened or weakened environmental
    protection?
  4. Did the opinion interpret an environmental statute or an unrelated legal issue?
  5. Did the opinion weigh the environmental impact of potential courses of action?

No single one of these considerations necessitate a particular rating.

 

Justice Ratings

Justices will be assigned a Green, Red, or Yellow gavel based on how they ruled, individually, in each case. Justices who did not write an opinion will be rated based on the written opinion in which they concurred. Justice ratings may not always correspond to the overall case rating.

Criteria to be considered includes:

  1. What rating did the case receive, and was the justice in the majority or dissent?
  2. If the justice dissented, would the dissent have protected the environment more or less?
  3. Was the opinion based on environmental considerations or interpretation and application of an environmental protection statute?

Once again, no single one of these considerations necessitate a particular rating. Suggested ratings for concurring and dissent opinions are the same as for the cases, applied as if each opinion had been the majority opinion.

Ratings Guidelines
GREEN GAVEL
  1. The opinion strengthened environmental protection.
  2. The opinion was based in part on environmental considerations or interpretation of an environmental protection statute.
  3. Was the opinion based on environmental considerations or interpretation and application of an environmental protection statute?
YELLOW GAVEL
  1. The case involved an environmental or natural resources issue, but the opinion did not strengthen or weaken environmental protection.
  2. The opinion weakened environmental protection, but followed precedent or was decided on an unrelated issue.
  3. The opinion weakened environmental protection and was decided by a split court, but both the majority and dissent opinions were based on unrelated legal issues and the dissent would not have strengthened environmental protection.
  4. The opinion weakened environmental protection, but accurately applied existing law or statute where the law or statute itself did not adequately protect the environment as written.
  5. Any other situation that may warrant a neutral rating despite an apparent negative impact on environmental protection.
RED GAVEL
  1. The opinion weakened environmental protection and was based solely on interpretation of an environmental statute or weighed the environmental impact of a particular course of action.
  2. The opinion weakened environmental protection, was decided by a split court, and the other opinion(s) would not have weakened environmental protection.
  3. The opinion weakened environmental protection and did not otherwise warrant a neutral rating.
In Summary

In summary, a green gavel will be applied where the opinion had a positive environmental impact. A red gavel will be applied only when the opinion had a negative impact ​and​ the environmental impact was a deciding factor, or where there was a split
and a competing opinion which would not have weakened environmental protection, or where there was a split and the opinion departed from precedent to weaken conservation. A yellow gavel will be applied in most other cases where natural resources or the environment was a subject of the controversy.

Guidelines are to be followed, especially when in doubt, but individuals may use informed independent judgment when applying ratings. The University of Michigan Law School did not participate in the rating process and takes no position regarding support or opposition for any judicial candidates.