Cherry, who called climate change a “different problem in degree and kind,” said that the investments “affect [Harvard students’] ability to enjoy the full benefits of a Harvard education.”  

Even if the suit is not brought to court, it may still have an impact, according to Lytton.

The suit “frames the issue as one of investor responsibility instead of oil company liability,” he said, calling it “somewhat of a reach” to win a judgement but contended that it may still effect change.

Regardless of the outcome, he said, the process itself could benefit the divestment movement by bringing press coverage to the issue. Moreover, if the case proceeds far enough to enter discovery—a formal process of information gathering prior to trial—the University’s investment practices and objectives could better come to light.

Lytton cited the suits brought against the Catholic Church following allegations of child abuse. Few suits made it to court, yet many unearthed information through the period of discovery and the subsequent release of information.

Benjamin Franta, a plaintiff and Ph.D. candidate in applied physics, declined to offer a response to legal experts, but said he had high expectations for the case.

“Of course we don’t know what will happen, we are hopeful the case will be heard,” he said. “I think the time has come for institutions—especially charitable institutions—to start to think about what is appropriate for them to invest in.”

—Staff writer Tyler S. Olkowski can be reached at tyler.olkowski@thecrimson.com. Follow him on Twitter @OlkowskiTyler.