The Rhode Island State Senate passed a constitutional amendment to establish a right to clean air, clean water, healthy soil, a life-supporting climate, and preservation of the environment. Senate Resolution 327 (S. 327), introduced by State Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski (D-37), passed the Senate in a vote of 32-4 on June 3. The constitutional amendment needs approval in the House of Representatives to be referred to voters in the November 2026 election.
Rhode Island currently has a constitutional provision similar to environmental rights amendments in other state constitutions. Included in Article 1, Section 17, which deals with the right of people to use the public shore and fish, the provision states that the people “shall be secure in their rights to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the state” and that the general assembly has the duty to “provide for the conservation of the air, land, water, plant, animal, mineral and other natural resources of the state.”
The Rhode Island amendment introduces new language that is not in the current provision. S. 327 would establish that all people in the state have an “inherent, inalienable, indefeasible, and self-executing right” to clean air, water, and soil and a life-supporting climate.
The Rhode Island amendment is preceded by environmental rights amendments in six states. In at least three states, the amendment is self-executing.
In 1971, Pennsylvania voters decided Question 3. The amendment declares the natural resources of the state as “the common property of all people, including generations yet to come.” It also grants the right to clean air and water, and the preservation of the environment. Voters approved the measure, with 79.7% voting yes.
Also in 1971, the Montana constitution was rewritten and approved as a result of a constitutional convention. Included in this constitution was an environmental rights amendment that requires the state to “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”
In 2021, New York Voters decided Proposal 2, a constitutional amendment that added the right to clean air and water, and a healthy environment to the state’s bill of rights. Voters approved the amendment with 70.1% voting yes.
Three additional states, four including Rhode Island, contain language concerning environmental rights. However, unlike the amendments in Pennsylvania, Montana, and New York, those rights are not self-executing, were not placed within the state’s bill of rights, or had limited scope.
- Illinois (1970), Article 11
- Massachusetts (1972), Article 96
- Hawaii (1978), Article 11, Section 9
- Rhode Island (1986), Article 1, Section 17
Different environmental rights amendments have been used to challenge actions in state courts.
In 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that, under the environmental rights amendment of 1971, the state is designated as a trustee of the public land and environment. As such, they have a duty to “prohibit the degradation, diminution, and depletion” of public natural resources. It also determined that the state legislature has a duty to “act affirmatively via legislative action to protect the environment.” The ruling stemmed from a 2013 lawsuit that the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund filed in an attempt to require that state revenue from oil and gas leases be used for environmental conservation. Their argument was that because the state was using the public lands for revenue, they needed to return that money to the conservation of those lands and the environment as a whole. The state Supreme Court agreed, and ordered that the revenue be used for environmental conservation.
In 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the state had violated the rights of the people by promoting fossil fuel development without considering the impact on climate change. The decision required that the state of Michigan, when issuing or reissuing permits to collect and develop fossil fuels, must assess the potential greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts.
Other states have made efforts to create a constitutional right to a clean environment in recent years.
The Connecticut legislature considered a similar bill in the 2025 legislative session. Senate Joint Resolution 36, which would have added an individual constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment, was introduced by the House Government Administration and Elections Committee. It was not passed by either the state House or the state Senate.
FloridaRighttoCleanWater.org is currently campaigning and gathering signatures for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment in Florida which would establish a “fundamental right to clean and healthy waters.”
Similar to Rhode Island, where S. 327 would expand environmental rights in the current constitution, the Hawaii legislature introduced a constitutional amendment in 2021, which would have expanded the standing constitutional provision for environmental rights. The amendment would have created a new section in the constitution which grants a right to “pure water, clean air and healthy ecosystems, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and healthful qualities of the environment.” This includes language not found in the current provision in the Hawaii constitution. The amendment was approved by the state Senate, but not the state House.
Green Amendments for the Generations is the main organization campaigning for an environmental rights amendment in all state constitutions, and ultimately the U.S. Constitution. It stated that in the United States “laws are designed to accommodate pollution rather than prevent it.” They state the solution to this is to “bypass the laws and turn to the ultimate authority—our state and federal constitutions.”
The Yankee Institute opposes the institution of environmental rights amendments in any state constitution. Carol Platt Liebau, president of the Yankee Institute, says that because there are no definitions set out in the amendments, it could open the door to unexpected and unforeseen lawsuits. Referencing the amendment proposed in Connecticut, she stated, “Does it therefore require the banning of all gas-powered cars? Can warring neighbors sue one another for unwanted barbecue smoke in their ‘climate’ or can people, who move next to a transfer station, sue to close it down?”
S. 327 passed the state Senate with a vote of 32-4, with two senators not voting. All thirty-two yes votes (84.2%) were Democrats, and all four no votes (10.5%) were Republicans; two Democrats (5.3%) did not vote. In order to be certified for the ballot and be decided by voters in November 2026, the state House must approve S. 327 with a simple majority, which amounts to a minimum of 38 votes. To be placed on the November 2026 ballot, the state House must approve S. 327 before the end of the legislative session, which is set to adjourn on June 30.