Can judges enforce environmental justice? Citizens in developing countries are increasingly reliant on the judicial branch of government to enforce environmental regulations, yet there is little empirical evidence on the effectiveness of judicial policies in improving environmental outcomes. In this paper, we report the first estimates of the causal effects of judicial orders on water pollution and child mortality in India. We construct a comprehensive dataset spanning four decades that includes court cases, judicial decisions, pollution indices, and infant mortality rates. We leverage the as-if random assignment of cases to judges in India’s courts. These judges vary in predicted rulings based on the history of how they write in non-environmental cases. We find that ’green’ cases are temporally associated with reductions in peak toxicity levels. However, these pollution reductions do not lead to decreases in neonatal and infant mortality rates in subsequent months. Several years post-decision however, pollution and mortality rates exceed pre-decision levels. Thus, while judicial orders can temporarily reduce environmental toxicity, they fail to instigate enduring enhancements in water quality and health outcomes, highlighting the potentially limited effects of environmental justice effectuated through the judiciary in high pollution settings such as India.