Whatever works: Advocacy, enforcement, and evidence in environmental justice cases

Objective: To investigate legal strategies employed by Massachusetts lawyers working in the area of environmental justice, and to explore lawyer's perceptions and uses of scientific expertise and data. Methods: This project used semi-structured interviews to collect information on eight lawyer's most recent environmental justice case, interactions with scientific data, and opinions on constraints or institutional influences. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed qualitatively. Results: Lawyers defined their role as either advocates for the community or enforcers of existing laws, which had implications for their perception of environmental justice and its practice. Both roles used any legal mechanisms at their disposal when working on environmental justice issues, forming a “whatever works” strategy. Despite recognition that the current legal structure is lacking enforcement capability, few lawyers were willing to recommend the adoption of an environmental justice statute in Massachusetts. While there was consensus among the lawyers regarding the need for science in their work, they were apprehensive about scientist's communication styles, costs of data and expertise, establishing causation, and trustworthiness of experts. Conclusion: Findings suggest a framework for how lawyers perceive the practice of environmental justice law. The results highlight tensions between law and science in the field of environmental justice, whose resolution would have implications for environmental justice and public health more broadly. Increased communication and understanding of both legal and scientific matters and their objectives by both parties may lead to more productive lawyer-scientist partnerships. Further research could investigate practical suggestions put forth and implications for environmental justice legislation.