Judicial Influence: Trust and Climate Litigation Outcomes in European Democracies

Why do individuals with traditionalist values change their perceptions on a polarizing political issue following a ruling by a highest court? A recent survey experiment reveals that rulings by the German Federal Constitutional Court increase public support for climate mitigation among right-leaning German respondents with traditionalist values—individuals typically less inclined to back climate policies. This outcome challenges prevailing populism scholarship, which argues that traditionalists with low institutional trust perceive court rulings as elite-driven cues and respond negatively. Therefore, we contend that courts, as highly trusted institutions, can elevate issues like climate change in public discourse, influencing opinions even among climate skeptics in polarized societies. To assess this argument, we adopt a cross-European comparative design, extending beyond the relatively less polarized German context and its widely trusted Constitutional Court. Leveraging data on climate litigation, media coverage, and individual-level panel datasets, we apply a difference-in-differences approach to compare shifts in attitudes among traditionalists before and after court rulings with those of progressive respondents. Our preliminary findings suggest that judicial action positively shapes climate concerns, even among traditionalists, though this effect diminishes as societal polarization increases. This research holds significant relevance considering the expanding role of courts in resolving contentious issues within polarized societies. Our results underscore the potential of climate litigation as a tool for advancing climate action, enabling citizens and NGOs to engage traditionalist voters who are often less receptive to such policies.