Constitutional Environmental Rights as Tools of Environmental Justice: Applications in the United States Based on Examples from Brazil and France

• Author: Sara Zaat
• Position: Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. 2022; University of California, Berkeley, B.S. 2019
• Pages: 543-573

Constitutional Environmental Rights as Tools of

Environmental Justice: Applications in the United

States Based on Examples from Brazil and France

SARA ZAAT*

ABSTRACT

What can the movement toward federal constitutional environmental rights in

the United States learn from the implementation of such rights in Brazil and

France? Importantly, are these rights effective tools for advancing environmen-

tal justice among underserved communities, including in the battle against cli-

mate change? This Note compares the constitutional environmental rights in

Brazil and France, focusing on their efficacy in rectifying environmental injus-

tice, and infers whether these rights would be similarly effective in the United

States. The comparison of Brazilian and French law reveals the potential bene-

fits of constitutional environmental rights to the American environmental justice

movement and insights into overcoming the challenges that the United States

would likely face in implementing these rights. In terms of benefits, Brazil and

France offer evidence of how constitutional environmental rights advance envi-

ronmental justice by strengthening public participation; protecting animals

whose health is intertwined with those of people; compelling the execution of

robust climate change policy; and defending the environment against threats

imposed by the freedom of enterprise. Challenges the United States might face

in implementing these rights relate to justiciability; the positive versus negative

rights dichotomy; the political composition of the U.S. Supreme Court; and the

social limitations of constitutions in general. The comparative analysis supports

the conclusion that, given the qualified benefits seen in Brazil and France, as

well as the insights these countries provide toward overcoming challenges,

* Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. 2022; University of California, Berkeley, B.S. 2019.

© 2023, Sara Zaat.

I am deeply grateful for the guidance I received in preparing the initial version of this Note from

Professor Yvonne Tew and my colleagues in her spring 2021 Comparative Constitutional Law seminar.

I am grateful also to Professor Edith Brown Weiss for teaching me international environmental law,

inspiring me to write about constitutional environmental rights, and providing guidance and background

materials as I developed the topic for this Note. Additionally, I thank Professor William W. Buzbee for

teaching me U.S. environmental law, including the question of federal constitutional environmental

rights, and introducing me to and explaining Mays v. Governor of Michigan. Finally, I thank the

Georgetown Environmental Law Review staff and editors for their valuable input and for the opportunity

to improve this Note through participation in their Spring 2022 Symposium. Any and all opinions and

errors in this Note are my own.

543

constitutional environmental rights would likely be valuable tools to advance

environmental justice in the United States.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544

I. Environmental Justice by Country: Overview of Contemporary Concerns 550

A. Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550

B. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

C. United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552

II. Constitutional Environmental Rights in France and Brazil Compared . . . 553

A. Text of the Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

B. Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554

III. Applying Constitutional Environmental Rights in the American Context. 559

A. The Contested Status of Constitutional Environmental Rights in the

United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559

B. Likely Benefits of Constitutional Environmental Rights in the United

States Based on Those Experienced in Brazil and France . . . . . . . . 562

1. Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563

2. Protections at the Human-Animal Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563

3. Governmental Action on Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564

4. Checks on Corporate Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

C. Potential Challenges of Constitutional Environmental Rights in the

United States and Instructive Insights from Brazil and France . . . . 566

1. Justiciability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

2. Positive Rights in a Constitution of Negative Rights. . . . . . . . 568

3. Political Perils of Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

4. Social Limitations of Constitutional Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570

IV. The Way Forward: Using Constitutional Environmental Rights to Advance

Environmental Justice in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573

INTRODUCTION

“[T]he environment is not just something else to worry about. It is connected to

all the things we already worry about—our children, our health, our homeland—

and love with all our hearts.”

1

Why else must those in a position of power “worry about” our environment?

2

One reason that scholars have recognized is this: inattention to environmental

1. SANDRA STEINGRABER, LIVING DOWNSTREAM 289 (2d ed. 1997).

2. Id.

544 THE GEORGETOWN ENVTL. LAW REVIEW [Vol. 34:543