Commonwealth v. National Gettysburg Battlefield Tower, Inc.

In the 1970s, a private company sought to build a 307-foot observation tower on privately owned land abutting the historic Gettysburg National Military Park and other significant historical sites. This sparked a clash between the property rights of landowners and the newly established right to a healthy environment (R2HE). The R2HE was added to the Pennsylvania State Constitution by the 1970 Environmental Rights Amendment (Article I, Section 27). The Amendment guaranteed present and future generations “clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment,” and made the Commonwealth the trustee of those resources.

It is generally accepted that private landowners have the right to use their property as they see fit. However, this right cannot infringe upon the rights of their neighbors to reasonably enjoy their own properties. Additionally, landowners are required to comply with reasonable regulations enforced by the State in order to protect the public’s interest, under the government’s police power. The proposed tower met safety standards  of the Commonwealth’s Department of Labor and Industry, and complied with all local regulations and zoning ordinances.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth, represented by its Attorney General, sought to halt the tower’s construction, arguing it would infringe upon the public’s newly acquired right, R2HE, to preserve the natural, historic, and aesthetic values of Gettysburg Battlefield. The Plaintiffs based their case on the environmental amendment, asserting that it mandated government enforcement of R2HE.

The lower Commonwealth Court and the State’s Supreme Court disagreed on interpreting the Amendment and R2HE, specifically on its self-execution. The Supreme Court viewed the provision as a guiding principle , outlining both the people’s entitlement and the government’s obligation. However, the lack of clear criteria to assess environmental degradation risked granting excessive power to the Commonwealth. Despite the Court’s division on the self-execution aspect, it concluded the tower posed no harm, necessitating a balance between the landowner’s private and the public’s rights. While the Plaintiff argued the Court imposed a heavier burden of proof than the law required, legal precedent mandated ‘clear and convincing evidence’ for an injunction.”

Using amicus curiae briefs advance the R2HE conceptually

The Plaintiff presented architects, historians, theologians, and Park administrators as witnesses, focusing on the tower’s negative impact on Gettysburg Park’s scenic beauty. However, these witnesses largely omitted discussing the tower’s broader environmental effects, concentrating solely on aesthetic degradation. The Plaintiff implied that degrading aesthetics equated to a violation of R2HE.

In its ruling, the Court honed in on the Amendment’s reference to ‘clean air’ and ‘pure water.’ It concluded that the solely diminishing aesthetic value was too broad and vague to constitute an R2HE breach, lacking substantial proof of significant harm to air or water quality. The described aesthetic damages failed to amount to an R2HE violation. The Plaintiff could not substantiate that the tower would harm the protected values enough to warrant an injunction.

Utilizing a variety of legal arguments

For a Court to grant an injunction, a specific burden of proof must be met. The lower Court mandated that Plaintiffs demonstrate “great” or irreparable environmental harm with clear and convincing evidence. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the Plaintiff contested this standard, advocating for proving “some”  injury with a preponderance of evidence. A lower burden could extend R2HE protection and  permit cases with less certainty of present or future harm to be tried.

The Supreme Court  upheld the lower Court’s stance, citing precedent that injunctions necessitate a higher burden of proof. An injunction requires clarity in the Plaintiff’s rights and a high likelihood of irreparable harm without intervention. Put simply, the reason and imperative for the injunction had to be firmly established.

Emphasizing the State’s duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations

The focal point of the case revolved around the Commonwealth’s responsibility stemming from the newly established environmental Amendment. The Plaintiff’s argument rested on the tower’s encroachment upon the public’s Article 1, Section 27 entitlement to “clean air, pure water, and preservation of environmental, scenic, historic, and aesthetic values.” Invoking the Public Trust Doctrine, the Plaintiff sought to bar the tower’s construction, pressing the Court to intervene. While acknowledging the Commonwealth’s obligation to protect R2HE, the Court deemed the constitutional provision overly broad and undefined in scope. Consequently, it found no impermissible violation of R2HE, emphasizing the need for equity and balancing private property rights against perceived environmental harm from aesthetic alterations.

This legal case serves as an early precedent in how US State Courts navigated the incorporation of the R2HE into constitutional amendments. It clarified the extent of R2HE and its relationship with established court rights while outlining limitations on the Commonwealth’s authority to balance environmental preservation against private rights. Despite the amendment’s expression of legislative intent, its lack of specificity restrained the government from broadening its authority or altering traditional burden standards to halt private actions.