The lawsuit we filed against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the Rosenberry Drive trees has been almost universally well-received. Other than a few crazed online comments from the anonymously insane, we’ve received nothing but well-wishing for our effort. Even the Coeur d’Alene Press — no fan of environmental litigation — came out in favor of our lawsuit.
Despite what some people might think, going to court is not something we take lightly. A KEA lawsuit is actually quite rare. We are extremely careful that both the facts and the law are on our side, and that the issue is significant enough to expend the time and money and effort. Indeed, this is true for the vast majority of conservation organizations. It is easy to call a lawsuit frivolous, but very few of them really are. Quite literally, we can’t afford to lose many court cases.
Still, when laws are clearly violated, when the environment is clearly at stake, going to court needs to remain an option. Lawsuits should never be the first option, but they should always be available as a last resort. Unfortunately, access to the courthouse by conservation organizations is under attack. Congress has attempted to make some laws flatly unreviewable in court. Congress has attempted to limit government payment of attorney fees, even in cases where the government loses. And there are increasing attacks on university legal clinics which, like Gonzaga Law in our case, provide pro bono representation to low income people and public interest organizations without the ability to pay.
Courtrooms are inefficient and expensive places to resolve disputes, but courts do the job with authority and finality. The rule of law is what provides civilizations with actual civilization. Courts provide an honest way of dealing with honest disputes. We’re glad that this particular lawsuit is so popular, but we’re also glad that unpopular ones can be resolved the same way.