Environmental rights amendment

Last updated

An environmental rights amendment, also called a green amendment, is type of amendment usually proposed to a constitution or a bill of rights. These amendments guarantee citizens the right to a healthy environment. Related rights included in these proposals often include a right to a stable climate, clean air and water, environmental justice, preservation of natural, scenic, esthetic and historic values of the environment. [1] [2]

The right to a healthy environment can be implemented into constitutional law other ways, such as written into constitutions in their drafting, such as in Tunisia, or enforced through climate change litigation, such as in Colombia. In the United States, most advocates are focused on amending existing state constitutions or enforcing existing state constitutions, such as in Held v. Montana , where youth won a trial court judgment for enforcement the existing state constitution. [3]

United States

States in green have an environmental rights amendment. States in yellow have legislation in process as of 2024. Unted States environmental rights amendments map.svg
States in green have an environmental rights amendment. States in yellow have legislation in process as of 2024.

In the United States, there is no federal environmental rights amendment in the United States. [2] While environmental rights are mentioned in a number of state constitutions, the state of Pennsylvania was the first to pass an actual environmental rights amendment [4] as part of their state's bill of rights in 1971. Montana added environmental rights in 1972. [5]

It was not until 2022 that New York state [6] added an environmental rights amendment to their bill of rights. Article I section 19 of the New York Constitution provides, "Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment." [7] The effort to get the Green Amendment on the ballot started in 2017 and was successful in November 2021. [8]

Pennsylvania's environmental rights amendment was proposed by conservationist Ralph W. Abele about 1969 when he became executive secretary of the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee of the Pennsylvania House and Senate. [9] In 1972 he became executive director of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. During his entire career Mr. Abele was a strong voice for protecting the state's lakes, rivers and streams. [9]

There are several ways to add an environmental rights amendment to a state constitutions in the United States. Although each state is slightly different, in general the state legislature has to pass legislation for the amendment, then it goes before the voters to decide if it will actually be added to the state constitution. [10] A citizen petition can also get an amendment before the people, if the petition can get enough signatures from residents in the state, and go though some other steps, then it can be put before the voters. Citizens in Florida are attempting to do this as of March 2024. [10]

The states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia have drafted, or are drafting, legislation to add environmental rights amendments to their state constitutions. Other states may well be added to this list as time goes on. As of March 2024, nine states have legislation proposed that could potentially put it on the 2024 ballot. Hawaii, New Jersey, and Washington states have made the most progress toward this goal. [11] [12]

It is important for the wording of an environmental rights amendment to be specific so that it is enforceable. With specific rights clearly spelled out, such amendments could potentially keep cases out of courts since citizens and regulators would have clear text to refer to when evaluating potential projects. Some are concerned that these amendments will increase the number of legal cases. [12]

Held v. Montana was the first constitutional law climate lawsuit to go to trial in the United States, on June 12, 2023. [13] On August 14, 2023, the trial court judge ruled in the youth plaintiffs' favor, though the state indicated it would appeal the decision. [14] Montana's Supreme Court heard oral arguments on July 10, 2024, its seven justices taking the case under advisement. [3]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United States</span> Supreme law of the US since 1789

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the frame of the federal government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment regarding right to a jury trial

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Loving v. Virginia (1967) regarding interracial marriage, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India</span> Rights provided to Indian citizens

The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the states to its citizens and the duties and the rights of the citizens to the State. These sections are considered vital elements of the constitution, which was developed between 1949 by the Constituent Assembly of India.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. Along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause became part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868.

The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in part III of the Constitution of India guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These rights are known as "fundamental" as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land i.e. constitution. If the rights provided by Constitution especially the Fundamental rights are violated the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, directing the State Machinery for enforcement of the fundamental rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law in the United States by state</span>

The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly, depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction, although there is no uniform federal law. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions; others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while some allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.

With the adoption of a new constitution in 2008 under president Rafael Correa, Ecuador became the first country in the world to enshrine a set of codified Rights of Nature and to inform a more clarified content to those rights. Articles 10 and Chapter 7, Articles 71–74 of the Ecuadorian Constitution recognize the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish, give people the authority to petition on the behalf of nature, and requires the government to remedy violations of these rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State equal rights amendments</span> Provide various degrees of legal protection against discrimination

States have passed state equal rights amendments (ERAs) to their constitutions that provide various degrees of legal protection against discrimination based on sex. With some mirroring the broad language and guarantees of the proposed Federal Equal Rights Amendment, others more closely resemble the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change litigation</span> Use of legal practice to further climate change mitigation

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow climate change politics delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights. Litigants pursuing such cases have had mixed results.

Our Children's Trust is an American nonprofit public interest law firm based in Oregon that has filed several lawsuits on behalf of youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments, arguing that they are infringing on the youths' rights to a safe climate system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Right to a healthy environment</span> Human right proposed by environmental groups

The right to a healthy environment or the right to a sustainable and healthy environment is a human right advocated by human rights organizations and environmental organizations to protect the ecological systems that provide human health. The right was acknowledged by the United Nations Human Rights Council during its 48th session in October 2021 in HRC/RES/48/13 and subsequently by the United Nations General Assembly on July 28, 2022 in A/RES/76/300. The right is often the basis for human rights defense by environmental defenders, such as land defenders, water protectors and indigenous rights activists.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Florida Right to Clean Water</span> Environmental organization

Florida Right To Clean Water.org is a grassroots, volunteer, nonpartisan organization formed to place an amendment to the state constitution by citizens before the voters of the U.S. state of Florida, using a direct initiative that will give citizens of the state a right to clean and healthy waters. The organization consists of volunteers. They gather signatures of registered voters on petitions confirming the desire of the voter that the amendment be placed on the ballot by the secretary of state so all Florida voters may decide whether to adopt the amendment. The petitions are submitted to local election officials by the volunteers. Every county in the state has a supervisor of elections who reviews the submitted petitions for that county in order to determine that they are completed correctly and that the signers are registered voters in that county. The supervisor reports the numbers that have been verified to state officials.

Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's power to punish individuals who interfere with the right to vote in federal elections. The Court sustained the convictions of Jasper Yarbrough and seven others, who had been found guilty of beating and injuring an African-American man to prevent him from voting. The decision marked one of the few times that the post-Reconstruction Court upheld Congress's ability to protect civil rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 Michigan Proposal 3</span>

2022 Michigan Proposal 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, also known as Reproductive Freedom for All, was a citizen-initiated proposed constitutional amendment in the state of Michigan, which was voted on as part of the 2022 Michigan elections. The amendment, which passed, codified reproductive rights, including access to abortion, in the Constitution of Michigan.

<i>Held v. Montana</i> 2023 U.S. State Constitutional court case

Held v. Montana is a constitutional court case in the State of Montana regarding the right to a "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations":Art. IX, § 1 as required by the Constitution of Montana. The case was filed in March 2020 by Our Children's Trust on behalf of sixteen youth residents of Montana, then aged 2 through 18. On June 12, 2023, the case became the first climate-related constitutional lawsuit to go to trial in the United States.

References

  1. Jones, Katelyn Joanna (2017-03-04). "Changing the Nature of Our Constitutional Default: The Fight for a Right to a Healthy Environment". USURJ: University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal. 3 (2). doi:10.32396/usurj.v3i2.172. ISSN   2292-1141.
  2. 1 2 van Rossum, Maya K. (2017). The Green Amendment: Securing Our Right to a Healthy Environment (1st ed.). Austin, Texas and New York City, New York: Disruption Books. ISBN   978-1-63331-021-6.
  3. 1 2 Brown, Matthew; Hanson, Amy Beth (July 10, 2024). "Republicans urge reversal of landmark ruling in Montana climate change lawsuit by young plaintiffs". AP News. Archived from the original on July 11, 2024.
  4. "PA General Assembly". PA General Assembly. Retrieved February 26, 2024.
  5. "Section 1. Protection and improvement, MCA". Montana Legislature. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
  6. "New York State Constitution" (PDF). New York State Constitution. Retrieved March 13, 2024.
  7. "New York State Constitution - As revised, including amendments effective January 1, 2024" (PDF). dos.ny.gov. Retrieved September 20, 2024.
  8. "Legislative History | New York's Green Amendment". nygreen.pace.edu. Retrieved 2024-09-21.
  9. 1 2 "Ralph Abele Bio". Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
  10. 1 2 Holsopple, Kara (2023-07-21). "The movement to add an enviromental [sic] rights amendment to every state's constitution". The Allegheny Front. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
  11. "Green Amendment". National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
  12. 1 2 "Green Amendments Gain Traction in More States Ahead of Elections". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
  13. Noor, Dharna (12 June 2023). "Young Montana residents bring climate change case to court for first time ever". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 12 June 2023.
  14. Hanson, Amy Beth; Brown, Matthew (August 14, 2023). "Young environmental activists prevail in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana". AP News. Archived from the original on August 17, 2023.