A new Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 87, quietly took effect in December 2023. The wholesale adoption of a new rule is rare; most changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure involve tweaks or minor revisions to existing rules, and many existing rules are quite old. Yet, despite the novelty of a new rule, the debut of Rule 87 was subdued. There were no speeches, no symposia, no spontaneous expressions of joy from a grateful populace, and minimal judicial fanfare. Even civil procedural scholars have remained largely uninterested. Why did the addition of Rule 87 garner so little attention? The Rule is, on the surface at least, a straightforward device of emergency management. It establishes a series of procedural accommodations in the event of a \u201cCivil Rules Emergency,\u201d such as a pandemic or a severe storm that makes it impossible for a courthouse to operate under normal conditions. One can understand why this kind of pragmatic addition to the nitty-gritty of court administration failed to inspire much response. However, Rule 87 is notable beyond the emergency procedures it puts forth. Indeed, the most remarkable thing about the text and comments of Rule 87 is not what is included, but what is omitted: climate change. Despite referencing extreme weather events as one of the key motivations for the promulgation of the Rule, any reference to climate change is notably absent from the rule and comments. This choice to omit offers three useful opportunities for reflection and assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n