In 2021, New York voters approved what has become known as the “Green Amendment,” adding a new provision to the New York State Constitution declaring that every person has “a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” The amendment, codified in Article I, Section 19, took effect on January 1, 2022, and quickly became the subject of litigation and debate over how far the provision reaches and how it can be enforced.
A recent decision by the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department in People v. Norlite, LLC (2026 WL 530410, Feb. 26, 2026) is one of the most significant appellate rulings interpreting the amendment to date. The decision provides important guidance about how courts are likely to interpret the Green Amendment, particularly when private parties attempt to use it to compel government agencies to take environmental enforcement actions. For municipalities, businesses, developers, and environmental advocates alike, the ruling helps clarify the amendment’s current legal boundaries.
The Green Amendment: A New Constitutional Right
As stated above, the Green Amendment added a short but significant sentence to New York’s Constitution, that each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.
Because the amendment is relatively new, courts are still determining what that language means in practice. In many ways, the Green Amendment differs from traditional environmental laws. Most environmental protections in New York are found in statutes such as the Environmental Conservation Law and are implemented through regulatory agencies like the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
By contrast, the Green Amendment is constitutional in nature. That distinction raised several early questions, including:
- Does the amendment create new causes of action?
- Can individuals sue businesses directly under it?
- Can courts order state agencies to take specific environmental enforcement actions?
Several trial courts have considered these questions since 2022, and appellate courts are now beginning to shape the legal framework.
The Norlite Litigation
The dispute in People v. Norlite, LLC arose from an industrial facility in Albany County that processes shale into aggregate and operates under permits issued by the DEC. The facility has long faced complaints from nearby residents about fugitive dust emissions and other environmental impacts.
In 2022, the State of New York and the DEC brought an enforcement action against the facility alleging violations of environmental laws and permit conditions. During that litigation, several community organizations and individuals intervened.
The intervenors went further than the state’s enforcement claims. They asserted that the DEC itself was violating the Green Amendment by allowing the facility to continue operating under its permits. They asked the court to declare that the agency’s actions violated their constitutional right to a healthful environment and to order the DEC to revoke the facility’s permits.
The trial court dismissed that claim, and the intervenors appealed.
The Appellate Court’s Key Holding
The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of the intervenor’s Green Amendment claim, concluding that the Amendment does not allow private parties to compel government agencies to take specific enforcement actions. Although the intervenors framed their claim as a request for a declaratory judgment, the court held that the substance of the claim was effectively a request for a form of judicial relief known as mandamus. Mandamus is a legal mechanism that allows courts to order government officials to perform a duty required by law.
However, mandamus is only available when the government action being sought is “ministerial,” meaning the agency has no discretion and must perform the act. When agencies have discretion to decide whether and how to enforce the law, courts generally cannot compel them to act.
In Norlite, the court determined that decisions about environmental enforcement, such as modifying permits, imposing penalties, or revoking operations, are discretionary functions of the DEC. As a result, the Green Amendment could not be used to force the agency to revoke the facility’s permits or take specific enforcement actions.
Is the Green Amendment “Self-Executing”?
One of the most important aspects of the decision is the court’s treatment of the argument that the Green Amendment is “self-executing.”
A constitutional provision is considered self-executing if it automatically creates enforceable legal rights without the need for additional legislation.
The intervenors argued that the amendment created a substantive constitutional right that courts could enforce directly, even without implementing legislation. The Third Department rejected that argument.
The court concluded that the language and legislative history of the amendment did not show an intent to create new enforcement mechanisms beyond existing environmental laws. Notably, the amendment does not contain language explicitly authorizing private lawsuits or requiring the state to take specific actions.
As a result, the court held that the amendment does not create a new independent cause of action allowing private parties to compel environmental enforcement.
How the Decision Fits with Earlier Cases
The Norlite decision aligns closely with earlier judicial interpretations of the Green Amendment.
In particular, the Third Department relied heavily on the Fourth Department’s earlier ruling in Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. State of New York. That case similarly concluded that the Green Amendment does not authorize courts to direct state agencies to take specific enforcement actions.
Together, these decisions suggest a developing appellate consensus that:
- The amendment recognizes an environmental right.
- However, it does not automatically create a new mechanism to compel state enforcement.
- Existing environmental statutes and regulatory frameworks remain the primary tools for addressing environmental harms.
Lower courts have also reached similar conclusions in cases involving municipal park management, local environmental disputes, and challenges to agency action.
What Businesses and Developers Should Know
For regulated industries, the Norlite decision suggests that businesses cannot typically be sued directly under the Green Amendment in the absence of a separate legal cause of action. Environmental claims against private entities will still need to rely on established legal theories such as statutory violations, nuisance, negligence, or permit enforcement.
However, the decision does not mean the Green Amendment is irrelevant to businesses.
Courts may still consider the amendment when interpreting statutes, evaluating environmental impacts, or reviewing government decision-making. The constitutional recognition of environmental rights could influence how agencies and courts analyze environmental disputes.
For developers and industrial operators, this means environmental permitting and compliance remain the central regulatory battleground.
What Municipalities Should Watch
Municipal governments may also encounter Green Amendment claims in a variety of contexts, including:
- Zoning and land use approvals
- Environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
- Municipal infrastructure and public works projects
While Norlite limits certain types of constitutional claims, municipalities should expect continued litigation exploring how the amendment interacts with local government decision-making.
In particular, the amendment may appear in lawsuits challenging land use approvals or environmental review determinations, even if it does not create a standalone cause of action.
The Green Amendment’s Future in the Courts
The Norlite decision is an important step in defining how New York’s newest constitutional environmental provision will function. But it is unlikely to be the final word.
Environmental advocates continue to pursue cases testing the amendment’s scope, and courts may eventually address additional questions, such as:
- Whether the amendment can invalidate government actions that significantly harm the environment.
- How it interacts with environmental review laws like SEQRA.
- Whether it may shape the interpretation of existing environmental statutes.
As litigation continues, courts will further refine how this constitutional provision fits within New York’s already complex environmental regulatory framework.
The decision in People v. Norlite, LLC provides meaningful guidance on the limits of the Green Amendment. By holding that the amendment does not allow private parties to compel discretionary environmental enforcement actions by the state, the court reinforced the continued importance of existing regulatory systems and administrative law principles.
For businesses, developers, municipalities, and environmental advocates, the case is part of an evolving body of law that will continue to shape how New York balances environmental rights with regulatory authority in the years ahead.
Jacob H. Zoghlin, Esq. is a Partner in Underberg & Kessler LLP’s Litigation department and chairs the firm’s Environmental & Energy and Municipal Law practice groups. His practice focuses on environmental, land use, energy, and municipal law. He regularly represents towns, developers, and community members in matters involving SEQRA, zoning, permitting, and land use litigation. You can reach Jacob at (585) 258-2834 or jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com.
Reprinted with permission from The Daily Record and available as a PDF file here.
