Recognition of Environmental Rights for Pennsylvania Citizens: A Tribute to Chief Justice Castille

Abstract

This article is based on remarks made at a Special Session of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court at Duquesne University on October 7, 2014 in honor of Chief Justice Ronald Castille. It is about the loss and recovery of the original meaning of the Environmental Rights Amendment (Article I, Section 27) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. As a result of two court decisions in the 1970s, subsequent courts have essentially ignored the history, purpose, and text of Article I, Section 27. In its place, they have mostly applied a judicially-created three-part balancing test as a substitute for the amendment itself.

The recovery of the original meaning began with the Supreme Court’s December 19, 2013 decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth. A plurality of the court, in a scholarly, thoughtful, and detailed opinion by Chief Justice Castille, based its decision on the text, purpose, and history of Article I, Section 27. This article explains why Robinson Township is likely to have staying power even though it did not command a majority of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court. This article also collects and summarizes 79 judicial and administrative tribunal decisions applying or considering the three-part balancing test as a substitute for the text of the amendment, and demonstrates that the challenging party has almost never prevailed under that test.

Keywords: Chief Justice Castille, environmental, environmental rights, Pennsylvania constitution, Article I, Section 27, Robinson Township, Payne

JEL Classification: K00, K19, K32