New York’s Green Amendment Moves from Ballot to Courtroom

When New Yorkers went to the polls in November 2021, more than 70% voted in favor of adding a new environmental right to the State Constitution. This amendment, often called the “Green Amendment” or the “Environmental Rights Amendment,” took effect in January 2022 and states, in just one sentence: “Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.”

The language is simple, but its impact is anything but. For the past three years, courts, government agencies, lawyers, and community groups have wrestled with a basic but fundamental question: what does it actually mean to have a constitutional right to clean air and water? And what does it mean to have a right to a healthful environment?

A recent decision in Friends of Fort Greene Park v. NYC Parks and Recreation Department seeks to answer those questions. The ruling, issued in May 2025, may become a core part of how New York State interprets and applies the Green Amendment. An appeal is already pending, but the decision is worth examining closely because of what it says about the Green Amendment’s scope, its enforcement, and how it fits alongside New York’s existing environmental laws.

The Case: Trees, Parks, and Constitutional Rights

The dispute arose from a project in Brooklyn’s Fort Greene Park, where the New York City Parks Department approved a plan that involved cutting down 78 mature trees as part of a redesign. A community group, Friends of Fort Greene Park, challenged the decision, arguing that the Parks Department had violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), New York State’s main environmental review law. But they also added a new kind of constitutional claim: that the plan to cut down the trees without proper consideration of their environmental benefits or mitigation of the project’s impacts violated their members’ constitutional rights under the Green Amendment.

The group argued that the loss of trees would worsen air quality, increase stormwater runoff, and reduce environmental health in the area, directly undermining the constitutional guarantee of “clean air, clean water, and a healthful environment.”

The New York City Parks Department, for its part, countered that the Green Amendment was not meant to replace or expand SEQRA or other environmental laws. Instead, it said, the Amendment is not a brand-new way to challenge government projects that affect the environment.

This clash set up the key legal question, does the Green Amendment create enforceable rights that people can bring directly to court, or does it simply reinforce the importance of existing laws?

What the Court Said

In the Fort Greene Park decision, the judge ruled that the Green Amendment is self-executing, meaning it creates rights that can be enforced in court without any additional laws from the Legislature. In other words, people can file lawsuits claiming their constitutional right to a healthful environment has been violated, just as they could for rights like freedom of speech or equal protection under the law.

The court also found that these rights can be enforced against government actors. While private companies are not directly subject to Green Amendment claims, state and local agencies, like the Parks Department, are.

At the same time, the judge noted limits. The ruling emphasized that the Green Amendment does not erase or replace existing environmental review laws like SEQRA. Instead, it provides a parallel avenue for claims: one that could be used in cases where existing laws are not enough to protect environmental rights.

How This Differs from Prior Cases

To understand why the Fort Greene Park case matters, it helps to compare it with earlier rulings.

• Fresh Air for the Eastside (2022, 2024): This case involved a landfill in Monroe County. A trial court initially allowed claims against the state under the Green Amendment, but dismissed the Green Amendment claims against the landfill operator. On appeal, the higher court dismissed the claims against the state as well, leaving unclear if/how the Amendment could be directly enforced.

• Marte v. City of New York (2023): In this case, community groups challenged a real estate development in Manhattan. The court expressed hesitation to use the Green Amendment as a “new route” to challenge projects already reviewed under SEQRA. The claims were ultimately dismissed as time barred.

• Chan v. U.S. Department of Transportation (2024): In a federal case over New York City’s congestion pricing plan, the court echoed the caution from Marte. It read the Green Amendment as setting a baseline guarantee of environmental quality, not as a tool to block every project that causes localized harm.

Against this backdrop, the Fort Greene Park decision is notable for squarely holding that the Green Amendment is self-executing and creates enforceable rights against government agencies.

Why It Matters

The decision in Fort Greene Park has the potential to impact how environmental disputes play out in New York. It could mean:

• A New Legal Tool - Citizens may have a direct way to argue that government actions, whether approving developments, infrastructure projects, or park changes, violate their constitutional rights to a healthful environment.

• Greater Judicial Role - Courts may be asked to balance government projects against individual environmental rights in ways they have not done before.

• Interaction with SEQRA - While SEQRA focuses on the process of environmental review, the Green Amendment may add a substantive constitutional layer, asking whether a project ultimately respects the right to clean air, water, and a healthful environment.

• Uncertainty and Development - Because the Green Amendment is so new, courts are still defining its boundaries. Future cases will determine how far this environmental right extends, what kinds of harms are significant enough to trigger relief, and how it fits with other environmental and land use laws.

Looking Ahead

The Fort Greene Park decision is not the final word. An appeal is pending, and New York’s higher courts may ultimately decide whether they agree with the ruling’s interpretation. As that process unfolds, the case has already highlighted the central tension in the Green Amendment: is it a broad, enforceable right like freedom of speech, or a guiding principle that mainly works through existing laws?

For the public, the decision is a reminder that the Green Amendment was designed to be more than symbolic. Voters approved it in response to events like the Hoosick Falls water crisis, Hurricane Ida’s devastating floods, and growing concerns about air quality, climate change, and environmental justice. Whether the courts interpret it narrowly or broadly, the Amendment is now a part of New York’s constitutional fabric, and cases like Fort Greene Park will continue to shape how it is understood.

Jacob H. Zoghlin is a Partner in Underberg & Kessler LLP’s Litigation department and chairs the firm’s Environmental Law and Municipal Law practice groups. He focuses his practice in the areas of environmental law, municipal law, development law, energy law, zoning and land use law, cannabis law, Article 78 proceedings, and related litigation. He can be reached at jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com or 585-258-2834.

Reprinted with permission from The Daily Record and available as a PDF file here.