One might suppose that the losing plaintiffs in a case alleging that greenhouse-gas emissions from oil and energy companies led to property damage from global warming would deserve to have the decision of a lone trial judge reviewed by a panel of appellate judges. That’s in keeping with the old adage that “two minds are better than one,” which generally holds true in appellate decision-making. The thinking is that the more judges who participate in an appeal, the more likely the court is to reach a correct outcome. Somehow the exact reverse result has obtained in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit case of Comer v. Murphy Oil. The appellate court has concluded that the absence of a quorum dictates that the judgment of a single judge — the trial judge — will control, notwithstanding the fact that a panel of three appellate judges initially voted to reverse the trial judge. This outrageous elevation of mechanics — and erroneous mechanics, at that — over justice ought not to stand, especially in a case of such national importance.
The plaintiffs in Comer — property owners along the Gulf Coast — sued oil and energy companies, alleging that the defendants’ greenhouse-gas emissions had contributed to the severity of harms imposed on the plaintiffs by Hurricane Katrina. A lone district judge, ruling orally from the bench, dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the case raised nonjusticiable political questions. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit reversed, and it remanded the case for trial on the merits.
