Two major climate lawsuits brought by youth activists — one in federal court and another in Utah — were tossed out this month by judges who agreed that setting environmental policy is a job for the legislature, not the courts. Yet in Connecticut, lawmakers are advancing a constitutional amendment — known as the Green Amendment — that would do the exact opposite.
This proposed amendment (SJ 36) declares that “each person shall have an individual right to clean and healthy air, water, soil, ecosystems and environment and a safe and stable climate.”
It designates the state, along with municipalities and any political subdivisions, as “trustee of the natural resources of Connecticut,” including “its waters, air, flora, fauna, soils and climate.”
Additionally, it would require the state to “conserve, protect and maintain these resources for the benefit of all people, including present and future generations.” And most egregiously, these rights would be “self-executing,” meaning they could be “directly invoked and enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.”
In other words, if someone believes the state isn’t doing enough to stop climate change — or manage any natural resource to their liking — they could sue.
However, before this becomes law, the resolution faces several hurdles. It must pass the General Assembly by either a three-quarters supermajority in both chambers or a simple majority in two successive legislative sessions. Only then would the question go to voters in a statewide referendum.
The Green Amendment isn’t a new idea in Connecticut. It was first introduced in 2023 and brought back last session. Both times, it failed to gain any traction. But this year, lawmakers are trying again. On March 19, the Government Administration and Elections Committee voted to advance SJ 36. We’re now waiting to see whether legislative leadership will call it for a vote in the House or Senate before the session ends.
The Courts Get It Right
In Juliana v. United States, 21 young people argued that the federal government had violated their constitutional rights by failing to address climate change and promoting fossil fuel development.
They claimed that by encouraging fossil fuel production and exports, the government violated their rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments, as well as the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD), by denying them access to a stable climate system.
The PTD is the idea that certain natural resources — like waterways, wildlife, or public lands — are held in trust by the government for the benefit of the people. The public is considered the rightful owner, and it’s the government’s job to protect and manage those resources for everyone’s use.
But the left leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiffs were asking the judiciary to make national climate policy — something it was “powerless to do.”
The case dragged on for a decade, facing pushback from the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations. The plaintiffs eventually petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, but the justices declined to take it up earlier this month.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Juliana effectively shut the door on that case — and it wasn’t the only one to meet that fate.
In Utah, the state Supreme Court recently delivered a similar verdict. A group of teenagers filed suit in 2022, claiming the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies violated their constitutional rights to life and health. A lower court dismissed the case, and the teens appealed, hoping for a different outcome. They didn’t get one.
In 2023, the high court upheld the dismissal, finding the teens’ claims too vague to be decided in court. “The youth plaintiffs identify general categories of conduct without tying their claims to any specific government actions,” Justice Diana Hagen wrote. Without a concrete set of facts, she added, the case simply wasn’t something the judiciary could weigh in on.
However, the justices did offer a small concession: they ordered the dismissal be changed to “without prejudice,” giving the plaintiffs the option to try again. For now, though, the court made clear that rewriting energy policy is a job for lawmakers — not a group of teenagers armed with a lawsuit.
In both cases, the courts respected the constitutional separation of powers — and they could do so because there was no state or federal constitutional amendment forcing them to make a ruling.
How to Sue Your Way to Climate Policy
Now compare that with what’s happening in states currently with Green Amendments or trying to pass them.
In Held v. Montana, another group of youth activists sued under that state’s “clean and healthful environment” clause — and won.
The plaintiffs sued the state, the governor, and multiple agencies, arguing that Montana’s energy and environmental policies made climate change worse and violated their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. Their lawsuit took aim at provisions in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that blocked state agencies from considering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when reviewing projects.
A lower court sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the state’s refusal to account for climate impacts was unconstitutional. The judge struck down the MEPA limitation and issued an injunction preventing the state from enforcing it. The court also rejected the state’s request to subject the teenagers to psychiatric evaluations, calling it unwarranted.
Montana’s Supreme Court upheld the ruling, affirming that the state constitution protects the right to a stable climate system. The justices found that excluding GHG emissions from environmental review violated that right — and permanently barred the state from doing it again. The decision marked the first time a U.S. court recognized a constitutional right to a livable climate and set a precedent for climate litigation nationwide.
Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) was unhappy with the ruling, warning that it would trigger “perpetual lawsuits,” waste taxpayer dollars, and drive up energy bills. He accused the court of overstepping its authority and making policy from the bench, calling the decision “open season” on the state’s all-of-the-above energy strategy.
Philip Gregory, one of the attorneys behind the case, has made it clear his team plans to use the Montana ruling as a blueprint for similar lawsuits in other states.
Additionally, in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, 13 young plaintiffs sued over transportation-related emissions. The case didn’t even go to trial.
Rather than letting the case play out in court, the state entered into a settlement that obligates Hawaii to develop a decarbonization plan, expand public transit infrastructure, and complete pedestrian and bicycle paths.
The agreement also includes a $40 million investment in public EV charging stations by 2030, and long-term planning commitments that will require hundreds of millions more in infrastructure upgrades and carbon reductions.
While the state did not disclose a full cost estimate but thanks to the court, Hawaii taxpayers will be on the hook for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in mandated spending.
Why Does This Matter to Connecticut?
Imagine if one of these cases landed in Connecticut — and instead of defending the state, the Attorney General (AG) decided to side with the plaintiffs. That’s not far-fetched. It’s a very real risk.
We’ve seen this film before. During the Obama administration, environmental groups would sue agencies like the EPA over missed regulatory deadlines, then quietly settle behind closed doors — a tactic known as “sue and settle.”
These settlements put new rules into place without public debate or legislative input — all while taxpayers picked up the tab for both sides’ legal fees.
If Connecticut’s Green Amendment passes, and a like-minded environmental group sues the state over a permitting decision or climate plan, there’s nothing stopping a sympathetic AG from doing the same here: declining to defend the state, rushing into a settlement, and letting a judge impose expensive new mandates. These court-approved deals tie the hands of future governors and impose new spending or mandates without a single vote in the General Assembly.
Worse, it would make these lawsuits not just more common — but harder to dismiss and easier to win. That means more court-mandated mandates, fewer decisions by elected representatives, and more pressure on already-strained state and local budgets.
The courts were right to dismiss Juliana and the Utah case. They showed judicial restraint and respected the role of the legislative branch. But if Connecticut adopts a Green Amendment, it will invite a flood of lawsuits — and hand activist lawyers a roadmap on how to rewrite state policy one lawsuit at a time.
Lawmakers should reject SJ 36 before it turns Connecticut into the next cautionary tale. This isn’t about clean air or water — it’s about giving unelected judges and activist attorneys the final say on how the state is run. Once that power leaves the legislature, there’s no getting it back — only court orders, blank checks, and a future written in lawsuits.
