What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rule of Five: Making Climate History at the Supreme Court
Winner of the Julia Ward Howe Prize
“The gripping story of the most important environmental law case ever decided by the Supreme Court.”
―Scott Turow
“In the tradition of A Civil Action , this book makes a compelling story of the court fight that paved the way for regulating the emissions now overheating the planet. It offers a poignant reminder of how far we’ve come―and how far we still must go.”
―Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature
On an unseasonably warm October morning, an idealistic young lawyer working on a shoestring budget for an environmental organization no one had heard of hand-delivered a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency, asking it to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from new cars. The Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to regulate “any air pollutant” thought to endanger public health. But could carbon dioxide really be considered a harmful pollutant? And even if the EPA had the authority to regulate emissions, could it be forced to do so?
The Rule of Five tells the dramatic story of how Joe Mendelson and the band of lawyers who joined him carried his case all the way to the Supreme Court. It reveals how accident, infighting, luck, superb lawyering, politics, and the arcane practices of the Supreme Court collided to produce a legal miracle. The final ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA , by a razor-thin 5–4 margin brilliantly crafted by Justice John Paul Stevens, paved the way to important environmental safeguards which the Trump administration fought hard to unravel and many now seek to expand.
“There’s no better book if you want to understand the past, present, and future of environmental litigation.”
―Elizabeth Kolbert, author of The Sixth Extinction
“A riveting story, beautifully told.”
― Foreign Affairs
“Wonderful…A master class in how the Supreme Court works and, more broadly, how major cases navigate through the legal system.”
― Science
“The gripping story of the most important environmental law case ever decided by the Supreme Court.”
―Scott Turow
“In the tradition of A Civil Action , this book makes a compelling story of the court fight that paved the way for regulating the emissions now overheating the planet. It offers a poignant reminder of how far we’ve come―and how far we still must go.”
―Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature
On an unseasonably warm October morning, an idealistic young lawyer working on a shoestring budget for an environmental organization no one had heard of hand-delivered a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency, asking it to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from new cars. The Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to regulate “any air pollutant” thought to endanger public health. But could carbon dioxide really be considered a harmful pollutant? And even if the EPA had the authority to regulate emissions, could it be forced to do so?
The Rule of Five tells the dramatic story of how Joe Mendelson and the band of lawyers who joined him carried his case all the way to the Supreme Court. It reveals how accident, infighting, luck, superb lawyering, politics, and the arcane practices of the Supreme Court collided to produce a legal miracle. The final ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA , by a razor-thin 5–4 margin brilliantly crafted by Justice John Paul Stevens, paved the way to important environmental safeguards which the Trump administration fought hard to unravel and many now seek to expand.
“There’s no better book if you want to understand the past, present, and future of environmental litigation.”
―Elizabeth Kolbert, author of The Sixth Extinction
“A riveting story, beautifully told.”
― Foreign Affairs
“Wonderful…A master class in how the Supreme Court works and, more broadly, how major cases navigate through the legal system.”
― Science
368 pages, Paperback
First published March 10, 2020
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 31, 2020
This is the best book I've read this year, but then I'm a lawyer who even had a case go to the U.S. Supreme Court. (I won). The tiniest details from big strategy to word-by-word drafting of briefs and petitions are all set forth here. It's fascinating to anyone who cares about the role of the Supreme Court, the internal politics of any large public interest group (in this case the "Carbon Dioxide Warriors"), presidential betrayal (by both parties), the personalities of the best and most influential lawyers in the country.
The book chronicles how those environmentalists seeking EPA regulation of greenhouse gases met and overcame obstacles at every step, winning a stunning Supreme Court victory. The environmentalists ("petitioners" in legal jargon) consisted of dozens of interest groups including various states, environmental groups like the Sierra Club, and some green industry companies. Their opponents were the EPA itself (forced by presidential or vice-presidential pressure), automotive and oil industry interest groups and others.
The book is well-written and easily understood by laymen. It's not about climate science. That's well-settled, despite interest groups or individuals who don't want to admit it. It's about what it takes to win a case in the Supreme Court. There's also just the right amount of biography about the many lawyers who are a part of the story. Make no mistake: the skill and experience of a lawyer is critical to winning a major case and there are many top notch lawyers in this one. Unfortunately, they didn't always see eye-to-eye and some friendships were broken by the disagreements.
You might not think the verbiage of a legal brief is likely to be interesting reading, but you'd be wrong. One small example that delighted me was when the final draft of the petitioners' brief was circulated to the dozens of interested parties, a last minute change was made to a quote from The Three Musketeers. The original sentence in the brief quoted Cardinal Richelieu speaking in an arrogant and clearly unlawful fashion as a comparison to the EPA's conduct. One of the reviewers allowed that the quote could remain, but insisted it needed to be attributed to Dumas, the author of the book, rather than Richelieu, the character, so as to avoid offending the Supreme Court justices who were Catholic. Six of the current justices are now Catholic, by the way, and the other three are Jewish. Whatever happened to WASPs being in power? Anyway, a single word change could make a difference. I remember how I agonized over every sentence when I wrote my appellate brief. For me, this was a fascinating read.
The book chronicles how those environmentalists seeking EPA regulation of greenhouse gases met and overcame obstacles at every step, winning a stunning Supreme Court victory. The environmentalists ("petitioners" in legal jargon) consisted of dozens of interest groups including various states, environmental groups like the Sierra Club, and some green industry companies. Their opponents were the EPA itself (forced by presidential or vice-presidential pressure), automotive and oil industry interest groups and others.
The book is well-written and easily understood by laymen. It's not about climate science. That's well-settled, despite interest groups or individuals who don't want to admit it. It's about what it takes to win a case in the Supreme Court. There's also just the right amount of biography about the many lawyers who are a part of the story. Make no mistake: the skill and experience of a lawyer is critical to winning a major case and there are many top notch lawyers in this one. Unfortunately, they didn't always see eye-to-eye and some friendships were broken by the disagreements.
You might not think the verbiage of a legal brief is likely to be interesting reading, but you'd be wrong. One small example that delighted me was when the final draft of the petitioners' brief was circulated to the dozens of interested parties, a last minute change was made to a quote from The Three Musketeers. The original sentence in the brief quoted Cardinal Richelieu speaking in an arrogant and clearly unlawful fashion as a comparison to the EPA's conduct. One of the reviewers allowed that the quote could remain, but insisted it needed to be attributed to Dumas, the author of the book, rather than Richelieu, the character, so as to avoid offending the Supreme Court justices who were Catholic. Six of the current justices are now Catholic, by the way, and the other three are Jewish. Whatever happened to WASPs being in power? Anyway, a single word change could make a difference. I remember how I agonized over every sentence when I wrote my appellate brief. For me, this was a fascinating read.
May 3, 2020
This book is a treasure, telling not only the story of the first win against the federal government by environmentalists but also a great book on the inside workings of the Court. Highly recommend this.
April 16, 2020
Well written, clear message with knowledge and inspiration.
August 29, 2021
"The greatest economic threat by far to public health and welfare will come not from addressing climate change, but from failing to do so."
Great read for anyone interested in environmental law and climate change law or the workings of the Supreme Court and what it's like arguing before it. Quick, engaging read that is not aimed at lawyers - a good read for non-lawyers interested in these topics.
Great read for anyone interested in environmental law and climate change law or the workings of the Supreme Court and what it's like arguing before it. Quick, engaging read that is not aimed at lawyers - a good read for non-lawyers interested in these topics.
February 22, 2026
I'll first start by saying that this book is an enjoyable read and you don't need to be a lawyer or law student to understand it. For the most part, Lazarus gives a thorough overview of the case. However, Lazarus errs in a few ways. One, he spends very little time on the dissent. Considering this was a 5-4 decision, you would expect more discussion on Roberts' and Scalia's dissent. Second, he doesn't devote enough attention to how the court has changed since the case was decided. We now have a more powerful conservative majority on the court and it should not shock anyone who has paid attention to the Supreme Court in recent years to see that the impact of Massachusetts v EPA has been undone. Third, Lazarus was not transparent. He only mentions on the very last page that he had a small role in the case. He never mentioned this before. But he's not even clear on this part. According to Lisa Heinzerling, in her review of the book in the Michigan Law Review, Lazarus was asked early on to both write the briefs and present the oral argument and he had agreed to do so! He never mentions this anywhere in the book. Additionally, as noted in Heinzerling's review, Lazarus used confidential emails to source his material without getting permission from all those involved in the email. This is quite unethical especially considering Lazarus is an attorney. While I won't suggest people not read this book, I would recommend everyone read Heinzerling's review afterward. If you don't already know who Lisa Heinzerling is, then you didn't read Lazarus' book, since she played a crucial role in Massachusetts winning the case.
March 26, 2021
The Rule of Five: Making Climate History at the Supreme Court by Professor Richard Lazarus is a truly interesting and well-researched work of legal and environmental history. Lazarus does what few writers can do; make a set of complicated legal arguments an engaging read! This is on par with Richard Kluger’s Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board and Anthony Lewis’ re-telling of Gideon v. Wainwright.
As a historian of the Supreme Court as well as a practitioner who has argued before the Supreme Court Lazarus is clearly someone who knows the Court well and understands the role it plays in shaping our lives. He brings this knowledge and experience to bear in a carefully detailed analysis of both the case (Massachusetts v. EPA) and the players. This should be required reading for all would-be environmentalist and for anyone who wants to better understand how the Supreme Court of the United States operates.
December 22, 2022
최근 몇년간 읽은 책들중 최고가 아닐까. 미국 연방 대법원의 메사추사츠 대 환경보호국 (Massachesetts v. EPA) 사건을 주로 다룬다. 동시에 리차드 닉슨 대통령 (Signing Clean Air Act in 1970) 부터 조 바이든 대통령까지 (Rejoining the Paris Agreement in 2021) 최근 50년간 미국의 환경법 역사의 흐름을 관통한다. 글의 디테일이 풍부하고 (대법관들이 판결 과정에서 사용하는 연필, 식사 메뉴, 법정의 인테리어 등) 이야기 서술 방식이 극적이어서 읽는 내내 지루할 틈이 없었다. 마지막 에필로그에서 드러나는 저자 Richard Lazarus의 희망적이고 영감을 주는 견해 까지 너무나 훌륭한 책. 기억하고 싶은 내용이 많다보니 북마크 한통을 다 썼지만, 그중에 책의 마지막 두 문장을 기록한다 (얼마전 읽은 On Tyranny의 리뷰와도 맞닿아 있음).
"It takes five votes at the Supreme Court to make a majority. It requires tens of millions of votes in national elections. But as the Massachusetts story makes clear, sometimes one committed person can make all the difference."
"It takes five votes at the Supreme Court to make a majority. It requires tens of millions of votes in national elections. But as the Massachusetts story makes clear, sometimes one committed person can make all the difference."
January 6, 2024
A tremendous book that made even banal legal arguments and linguistic tricks seem exciting. Great underdog story that underscores the importance of an unbiased and non-partisan judicial system. As someone who works in the renewable field, I owe a lot to these brave “carbon dioxide warriors” who put their own careers on the line to protect the planet and advocate for regulatory policy that benefited the next generation.
August 19, 2025
A really excellent deep dive into the tiny events that lead to the most significant SCOTUS decision on climate change-related policy in American history. Prof Lazarus did such a good job describing the importance of carefully crafting argumentative language and the excitement of being a federal judicial clerk that it made me wish I was a lawyer.
January 10, 2026
Really great, simple, and engaging story telling of the MA v EPA litigation. Appreciated the behind the scenes stories of the plaintiffs. Surprised the author was able to get all that information. Author did a great job writing the litigation strategies; read like a thriller.
November 15, 2020
This was quite good. It follows a major environmental case resulting in a decision from the US Supremes. Lots of inside information.
February 18, 2022
Absolutely one of the best books I have ever read.
April 6, 2023
climate litigation slay
June 4, 2023
Highly recommend! Tells the inside story of the long path to the Supreme Court ruling in 2007 that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the EPA. Also a fascinating introduction to Supreme Court workings, accessible to a non-lawyer.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews