Developments In Green Amendment Litigation In New York

As previously reported in earlier forecasts, New York's environmental rights amendment to the Bill of Rights of the New York State Constitution, Article 1, §19, known as the "Green Amendment", guarantees each New Yorker the "right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment." Since its enactment in 2022, the amendment has generated sustained litigation testing whether, and to what extent, it creates a self-executing constitutional right that can be enforced by private parties against government actors.

The first appellate decision addressing the Green Amendment was issued in 2024 in Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. State of New York, where the Appellate Division, Fourth Department dismissed key constitutional claims. The court held that challenges to discretionary enforcement decisions by environmental regulators are generally not subject to judicial review and reaffirmed that constitutional claims cannot be brought against private parties. While the decision narrowed potential enforcement pathways, it left unresolved broader questions regarding the scope and mechanics of Green Amendment claims against governmental entities.

Those questions were taken up more directly in 2025 in Friends of Fort Greene Park v. NYC Parks and Recreation Department (Index No. 159628-23), which arose from a challenge to a municipal park renovation project involving the removal of mature trees. The petitioners alleged that the Parks Department's issuance of a determination that the project would not have a significant environmental impact under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) violated their Green Amendment rights, independent of SEQRA compliance. In a July 2025 decision, the court held that the Green Amendment is self-executing and creates an enforceable constitutional right that may be asserted directly against government actors without additional legislation. The court articulated a three-part framework: (1) examining statutory compliance; (2) whether a government action violates the constitutional right to a healthful environment; and, if so, (3) whether the action is justified by an important and proportionate governmental interest. Applying that framework, the court rejected the challenge, finding the SEQRA review adequate and concluding that the project's accessibility improvements and long-term environmental benefits justified the action.

In a separate 2025 case, Citizen Action of New York et al. v. NYSDEC (Index No. 903160-25), petitioners sought to compel the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to promulgate regulations implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). Petitioners argued that the agency's delay violated both the CLCPA and New Yorkers' constitutional environmental rights under the Green Amendment. The court's ruling, however, was grounded in the statutory mandates of the CLCPA, ordering regulatory action based on legislative requirements rather than issuing an independent merits ruling on the Green Amendment claim.

The key questions going into 2026 are whether the New York Court of Appeals will clarify whether the Green Amendment creates a robust, standalone constitutional cause of action and, if so, how broadly it applies to governmental decisions that affect environmental conditions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.