T] he Commonwealth' s declaration of rights, which delineates the terms of the social contract... assumes that the rights of the people articulated in Article I of our constitution—vis-à-vis the government created by the people—are inherent in man' s nature and preserved rather than created

In a 2013 case decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that overturned a law passed by the state legislature to promote fracking across the state, the plurality opinion described the trust as embodying the “inherent and indefeasible” rights of citizens reserved through their social contract with government.

The Amendment appears within the Declaration of Rights of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which sets forth a "social contract" between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its people.

—a plurality of our Supreme Court explained that the Environmental Rights Amendment requires "each branch of government to consider in advance of proceeding the environmental effect of any proposed action [on the environment]."

Moreover, although the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that the Amendment is judicially enforceable by private individuals, it has also confirmed that the right the Amendment creates is shared equally by all Pennsylvanians.

At least one state court has held in recent years that "the concept of public natural resources includes not only state-owned lands, waterways, and mineral reserves, but also resources that implicate the public interest, such as ambient air, surface and ground water, wild flora, and fauna (including fish) that are outside the scope of purely private property."

This environmental public trust was created by the people of Pennsylvania, as the common owners of the Commonwealth' s public natural resources; this concept is consistent with the ratification process of the constitutional amendment delineating the terms of the trust

The 158-page ruling deliberates on many issues pertinent to Colorado' s legislative and constitutional treatment of zoning, home rule, and due process concerns

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the lower court that certain provisions of Act 13, including chapter 33, violated state citizens' right to due process because it required the changing of local zoning laws "without regard for basic zoning principles and, thereby, failing to protect interests of property owners from harm and altering the character of …

—describing such rights as “of such 'general, great and essential' quality as to be ensconced as 'inviolate.' ” (quoting Pa Const, Art 1, § 25