Book Review: James R. May and Erin Daly: Global Environmental Constitutionalism

No abstrac

James R. May and Erin Daly: Global Environmental Constitutionalism

No abstrac

Subnational Environmental Constitutionalism and Reform in New York State

The State of New York’s constitution was perhaps the first in the world to embody environmental constitutionalism, most directly in what is known as its “Forever Wild” mandate from 1894. In contrast to many subnational environmental provisions, courts in New York have regularly enforced Forever Wild. New York’s Constitution also contains a remarkable mandate that every twenty years voters decide whether to hold elections for delegates to convene a convention to amend the state’s constitution, with the next such opportunity on November 7, 2017. This article explores how subnational constitutionalism from around the world informs discussions about whether and how to amend the charter, and has three parts. Part I provides a primer to the field of subnational environmental constitutionalism. Part II explores the opportunities and challenges in enforcing existing subnational environmental provisions. Part III then examines a case study involving language to consider at a constitutional convention for the State of New York

Litigation\u27s Role in the Path of U.S. Federal Climate Change Regulation: Implications of AEP v. Connecticut

This symposium analyzes the role of litigation in climate change regulation, with a particular focus on the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s June 2011 decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut ( AEP ). 1 This Essay adds to that conversation by exploring the significance of AEP for U.S. federal legal approaches to regulating climate change

Protecting Natural Resources - Forever: The Obligations of State Officials to Uphold Forever Constitutional Provisions

This Article analyzes the attacks on a state constitutional conservation lands program since the election of a governor and state legislature opposed to environmental regulation in 2010 – a precursor to current happenings at the federal level under the Trump administration. Former Florida Governor Rick Scott and his administration have spent an average of over $40 million a year in taxpayer money to defend and, in most cases, pay judgments, in lawsuits challenging mandates of the Florida Constitution. I examine this issue of ignoring or deliberately violating constitutional requirements through the lens of state constitutional provisions that protect natural resources, focusing on Florida and New York. Both states have explicit and specific protections for conservation and forest lands, which differ from constitutional provisions in other states that establish policies and delegate implementation authority to state legislatures. New York adopted its Forever Wild constitutional provision in 1894, and the text of that provision has remained intact, despite attempts to amend the provision or to pass legislation that would violate it. In Florida, there are two constitutional provisions that protect conservation lands under the Florida Forever program. This program has widespread public support and, at its inception, had non-partisan political support as well, until Rick Scott was elected to be governor. During his tenure, there have been repeated attempts to sell or trade conservation lands protected under the Florida Constitution. Instead of spending taxpayer money to defend violations of these constitutional provisions, Florida state officials should uphold the oaths they made to “support, protect, and defend” the state constitution. Natural resource protections in the Florida and New York constitutions provide noteworthy guidance for other states to initiate constitutional amendments for similar protections. In addition, there should be personal repercussions for state officials who willfully violate these state constitutional commands and restitution of taxpayer money spent to defend unlawful behavior