Why We Need an Environmental Rights Amendment in Maryland

Wayne Gilchrest • March 15, 2022

Marsh at Crapo in Dorchester Co. Photo: Jan Plotczyk


I am an environmental outdoor education teacher in Kent County, Md. My teaching focuses on the human effort to live compatibly with nature’s design so that the world remains sustainable, healthy, and just for all of life, today and in the future.

 

Over the course of eons, our planet has gone from a burning cauldron to cold rock, to weathered soil, to oceans, to bacteria, to finally life as we know it today. The sun and geologic forces interacting with the elements — air, water, soil, and even fire — make life not only possible and sustainable, but regenerative.

 

Knowing and preserving nature’s ways are the beginning of caring for nature and for each other. As peace advocate and longtime Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins wrote, “Knowledge is the solvent for danger.” And the knowledge we need now is that the sun shines on everything the same, the rain falls on the rich and the poor equally, and the wind blows through Black and White neighborhoods alike. The viruses that evolve over time do not recognize skin color or political points of view.

 

Harriet Tubman of Underground Railroad fame, a fugitive from the law who was denied citizenship because of the color of her skin, still believed in the grace of the nature of things. She believed in the equal right of all people to the full expression of their human dignity, which cannot be realized in a degraded environment. As a nation, we still “hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

 

And those inalienable rights, particularly to life itself, cannot be realized in an environment that poisons us — some of us more than others. Simply put, the human right to a reasonably benign environment needs to be constitutionally protected, at least at the state level, if not federally.

 

At the moment, according to environmental rights advocates, only four states have “green amendments” in their constitutions that are strong enough to effectively limit industrial pollution: Hawaii, Montana, Pennsylvania, and, as of last year, New York.

 

We need the same in Maryland, and, with the Maryland Campaign for Environmental Human Rights leading the charge, we’ve been trying to make that happen since 2019.

 

Adding an amendment to Maryland’s constitution requires a three-fifths vote in the legislature and then a simple majority vote in a statewide referendum. But for three straight sessions of the General Assembly, bills to draft an environmental rights amendment and to authorize a referendum have failed to even make it out of committee.

 

Del. Wanika B. Fisher, a Democrat who represents Maryland’s District 47B in Prince George’s County, has introduced a green amendment bill yet again for the 2022 session. Will the fourth time be a charm? Perhaps, but we don’t have to leave it to luck; we can reach out to our state senators and delegates and let them know we consider a clean, livable environment to be a basic human right.

 

That means drinking water that is free of lead and “forever chemicals.” It means not having to live next to a Superfund site. It means car windows — and lungs — that are not coated with coal dust from a nearby electric power plant. No mercury in fish. No breathing in or consuming microplastics. No climate change.

 

The list is long. Even daunting. But we are all here together. What affects one neighborhood will affect all neighborhoods.

 

Ignorance and indifference can no longer be an excuse. We humans are part and parcel of nature, yet we have ourselves become a global pollutant, creating cauldrons of chaos and despair.

 

This is especially obvious and troubling to the young, who fear for their future and feel betrayed by their leaders. Our behavior is fragmenting the glorious symmetry of nature’s regenerative system. But we can do something to fix it. We can make it a matter of constitutional law that individuals and companies and governments may not poison the environment and by so doing deprive people of their right to health and life itself.

 

We must live according to nature’s principles, creating a regenerative world that affords each generation no less than what prior generations enjoyed. And, hopefully, more. We can do this by recommitting ourselves to live within Earth’s planetary boundaries, ensuring that everyone — in this and future generations — has a right to a healthy environment. And we can do that by placing an Environmental Human Rights Amendment in Maryland’s constitution.

 

It is Harriet Tubman’s version of reaching the pinnacle of symmetry: Justice for all.

 

 

To learn about the effort to create an Environmental Human Rights Amendment, visit the website of the Maryland Campaign for Environmental Human Rights.

 

 

Wayne Gilchrest is a nature educator and former U.S. congressman  who represented Maryland’s 1st District from 1990 to 2008. Since 2010, he has put his energy into the Sassafras Environmental Education Center, which he founded. He lives in Betterton.

 

 

This article appeared in the Bay Journal.

 

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

By Friends of Megan Outten July 29, 2025
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
By John Christie July 29, 2025
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co July 15, 2025
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
Protest against Trumpcare, 2017
By Jan Plotczyk July 9, 2025
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Farm in Dorchester Co.
By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser May 21, 2025
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities May 21, 2025
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Show More