Should The Great Lakes Have Legal Standing?

By: Jack Baker

Edited by: Valerie Chu and William Liu

“Should Trees Have Standing?” This provocative question, first posed by Professor Christopher Stone in 1972, challenges conventional legal paradigms by suggesting that nature should have rights. Stone’s essay was published at the height of the American environmental movement and coincided with the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA), formally known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, a landmark federal statute designed to protect the nation’s water resources. [1] Despite the promise of such reforms, more than 50 years later, the Midwest still faces environmental degradation, and Indigenous rights are routinely ignored. These persistent problems demand an innovative solution.

Granting personhood to nature would empower vulnerable ecosystems to defend their rights through legal action. The United States federal government should grant legal personhood to the Great Lakes to advance Indigenous rights, reduce pollution, and challenge anthropocentrism.

Currently, crimes against the environment are typically prosecuted in one of two ways. Residents may file class-action lawsuits on behalf of nature, but this approach is frequently unsuccessful as citizens struggle to demonstrate a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation. Thus, regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are primarily responsible for managing and preserving the Great Lakes. [2] However, these agencies remain underfunded and understaffed, and laws like the CWA limit their ability to address pollution that does not directly contaminate waterways. Environmental personhood would provide a legal avenue for the Great Lakes to advocate for their own protection and reduce their reliance on individuals and underfunded agencies.

In order to effectively demonstrate the liberatory potential of environmental personhood, we turn to Duluth, Minnesota, where the St. Louis River flows into Lake Superior. Known as Gichigami-ziibi in Ojibwe, this river has been classified as one of the “most widely contaminated Superfund sites in the Rust Belt.” [3] Indigenous leaders have granted legal personhood to wild rice, the tribe’s primary food source, to block the construction of an oil pipeline through the Great Lakes ecosystem. [4] While the rice now has standing in tribal courtrooms, the Ojibwe still face legal challenges protecting access to the clean water necessary for its cultivation. This underscores the urgent need for federal intervention.

Blackfeet journalist Abaki Beck defines food sovereignty as “efforts to re-create local, sustainable, and traditional food systems” and an important goal of tribes seeking to combat the negative impacts of settler colonialism. [5] A loss of traditional food sources has been directly linked to an array of mental and physical health issues, including increased rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer within Indigenous communities. Furthermore, some scholars argue that “displacement and spiritual disconnection from the land” across the Midwest have created intergenerational trauma among Indigenous people. [6] Environmental personhood offers a path for Indigenous communities seeking to establish food sovereignty to “assume a more active role in advocating and promoting their land-related rights.” [7]

Additionally, the cosmology of Anishinaabe tribes like the Ojibwe emphasizes “reciprocity between humans and nature, rather than a hierarchy that places humans above nature—and some humans above other humans.” [8] Throughout much of the twentieth century, the European imposition of Western religious ideologies in the Americas portrayed Indigenous reverence for nature as uncivilized, significantly contributing to the exploitation of the natural world. [9] Just as the discrediting of tribal knowledge paralleled the rise of ecological destruction, adopting environmental personhood will foster greater respect for Native people and nature alike.

Many Indigenous leaders have raised concerns about using legal reform to combat settler colonialism because they view it as a perpetuation of the very systems that have historically undermined Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Despite this, others acknowledge that leveraging Western legal and philosophical frameworks, including a rights-based model, is a necessary but undesirable strategy for addressing issues within the United States’ existing legal system. [10]

Five hundred miles away from Duluth, in Toledo, Ohio, citizens living on the coast of Lake Erie have taken a similar approach. Lake Erie comprises nearly ten thousand square miles of surface freshwater and regularly provides eleven million people with their daily drinking water. [11] In the summer of 2014, a toxic algae bloom spread throughout the lake, primarily caused by agricultural runoff and industrial pollution. [12] Harmful algae blooms have long been prevalent in the western part of Lake Erie and have adversely affected “recreation, tourism, fishing, lakefront property values, and aquatic life” throughout the region. [13] Further inland, unregulated centralized animal feeding operations (CAFOS) in northwestern Ohio have significantly increased the amount of phosphorus in the region’s waterways which, combined with warm weather, often leads to dangerous algae growth. In 2014, algae blooms quickly contaminated the city’s water supply, leaving five hundred thousand residents without access to clean drinking water for multiple days. [14]

In response, a group known as Toledoans for Safe Water pursued the passage of the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR), which recognized the “irrevocable rights for the Lake Erie Ecosystem to exist, flourish and naturally evolve” as well as the “right to a healthy environment for the residents of Toledo.” The initiative also sought to “elevate the rights of the community and its natural environment over powers claimed by certain corporations.” [15] In 2019, the measure was put to a vote and passed.

Later that year, just months after Toledo residents voted in favor of granting legal personhood to Lake Erie, Ohio’s state government passed a law prohibiting the LEBOR’s implementation. [16] Additionally, a local farm quickly sued the city in an attempt, claiming that Toledo’s new ordinance was unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, a federal judge agreed, writing that the policy “sounds powerful but has no practical meaning.” [17] Hidden inside of his eight-page opinion, however, lies an opportunity for the federal government to take action: even though the LEBOR is terminally unenforceable, Congress should respond by granting legal personhood to the Great Lakes.

Finally, environmental personhood would represent a large shift away from existing anthropocentric legal paradigms. Extractive values, which justify the exploitation of nature, are deeply embedded within Western legal and political institutions and exasperate climate change.  [18] These values treat nature as separate and apart from humanity, justifying eco-managerialism, and even when the EPA regulates human activity, its application of existing environmental laws actively legitimizes harm to vital ecosystems. Essentially, the EPA’s role involves the performative conservation of certain ecosystems alongside the desultory legalization of exploitative practices deemed acceptable or necessary for human development. [19]

Time and time again, however, granting rights to nature has reshaped how Western societies understand the environment. As legal scholars have asserted, the “adoption of a rights discourse [is] essential to ensure the protection of the environment because until an entity receives rights, humans fail to see it as anything but a ‘thing’ to be exploited.” [20] In short, to ensure a sustainable future, it is crucial to recognize and implement ecocentric political tools like environmental personhood.

Environmental personhood has already been successfully implemented in various countries, including Bolivia, Colombia, and Bangladesh. In 2017, after extensive negotiations between community members, tribal leaders, and New Zealand’s government, the Whanganui River was granted legal personhood. [21] Similarly, Ecuador amended its constitution to guarantee legal rights to the environment in response to pollution caused by American oil companies. [22]

While some argue that the expansion of legal personhood for the environment would be unprecedented, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, during Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice William Douglas of the Supreme Court wrote that standing can and should be conferred upon vulnerable ecosystems. [23] Justice Douglas’ dissenting opinion clearly provides a “workable mechanism to identify a proxy for nature’s legal personhood” and could serve as the basis for environmental personhood in the United States. [24] Additionally, extending rights to those previously deemed undeserving of them has been an important part of American jurisprudence. Personhood has been extended to enslaved Africans and women, and notably, the Supreme Court expanded rights to corporations in 1886, setting a legal precedent for the expansion of rights to nonhuman entities. [25]

Granting personhood to the Great Lakes would not just be a legal reform—it would be a profound recognition of nature’s intrinsic value. This reform would simultaneously combat settler colonialism, reduce pollution, and challenge anthropocentrism. In elevating ecosystems to the status of rights-bearers, policymakers can and should acknowledge that the Great Lakes are not a resource to be exploited, but a sacred life force that deserves protection. In short, the future of our entire planet—and the generations that will inherit it—depends on our willingness to reimagine environmental law.

Notes: 

1. Chistopher D. Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, 1972, pp. 450-501.

2. Stacey J. Schaefer, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, p. 73.

3. Emily Levang, “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com/articles/legal-rights-of-nature/.

4. Ruby Russell, “Rights of nature: Indigenous traditions become law,” Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com/environment-nature-rights-indigenous-activism-legal-personhood/a-52186866.

5. Abaki Beck, “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change,” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org/2019/02/27/tribal-food-sovereignty-climate-change/index.html.

6. Abaki Beck, “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change,” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org/2019/02/27/tribal-food-sovereignty-climate-change/index.html.

7. Sequoia L. Butler, “‘I AM THE RIVER, THE RIVER IS ME’: How Environmental Personhood Can Protect Tribal Food Sources,” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79–107.

8. Emily Levang, “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com/articles/legal-rights-of-nature/.

9. Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.

10. Ruby Russell, “Rights of nature: Indigenous traditions become law,” Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com/environment-nature-rights-indigenous-activism-legal-personhood/a-52186866.

11. Daniel McGraw, “Fighting Pollution: Toledo Residents Want Personhood Status for Lake Erie,” The Guardian, 19 Feb. 2019, theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/19/lake-erie-pollution-personhood-status-toledo/

12. Jason Daley, “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People,” Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/toledo-ohio-just-granted-lake-erie-same-legal-rights-people-180971603/.

13. Kenneth Kilbert, “Lake Erie Bill of Rights: Legally Flawed but Nonetheless Important,” Jurist, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 14 Mar. 2019, jurist.org/commentary/2019/03/kenneth-kilbert-lebor-important/.

14. Jason Daley, “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People,” Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/toledo-ohio-just-granted-lake-erie-same-legal-rights-people-180971603/.

15. Nicole Pallotta, “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights',” Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, aldf.org/article/federal-judge-strikes-down-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/.

16. Dana Zartner, “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie,” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com/how-giving-legal-rights-to-nature-could-help-reduce-toxic-algae-blooms-in-lake-erie-115351.

17. Nicole Pallotta, “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights',” Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, aldf.org/article/federal-judge-strikes-down-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/.

18. Justine Townsend, et al, “Rights for Nature: How Granting a River 'Personhood' Could Help Protect It,” The Conversation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 3 June 2021, theconversation.com/rights-for-nature-how-granting-a-river-personhood-could-help-protect-it-157117.

19. Simon Davis-Cohen and Kai Huschke, “The EPA Has Abandoned Its Duty To Protect the Environment. 'Rights of Nature' Laws Can Fill the Void,” In These Times, 18 Nov. 2024, inthesetimes.com/article/trump-epa-covid-19-environmental-law-rights-of-nature-air-water-pollution.

20. Nicola Pain and Rachel Pepper, “Can Personhood Protect the Environment? Affording Legal Rights to Nature,” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, 2021, pp. 315–377.

21. Dana Zartner, “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie,” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com/how-giving-legal-rights-to-nature-could-help-reduce-toxic-algae-blooms-in-lake-erie-115351.

22. Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.

23. Caroline McDonough, “Will the River Ever Get a Chance To Speak? Standing Up For the Legal Rights Of Nature,” Villanova Environmental Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, 27 Jan. 2020, pp. 143–164.

24. Stacey J. Schaefer, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, p. 73.

25. Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.

Bibliography:

Beck, Abaki. “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change.” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Butler, Sequoia L. “‘I AM THE RIVER, THE RIVER IS ME’: How Environmental Personhood Can Protect Tribal Food Sources.” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79–107.

Daley, Jason. “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Davis-Cohen, Simon, and Kai Huschke. "The EPA Has Abandoned Its Duty To Protect the Environment. 'Rights of Nature' Laws Can Fill the Void," In These Times, 18 Nov. 2024.

Galeano, Eduardo. "Nature is Not Mute." The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.

Kilbert, Kenneth. “Lake Erie Bill of Rights: Legally Flawed but Nonetheless Important.” Jurist, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 14 Mar. 2019, jurist.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Levang, Emily. “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

McDonough, Caroline. “Will the River Ever Get a Chance To Speak? Standing Up For the Legal Rights Of Nature.” Villanova Environmental Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, 27 Jan. 2020, pp. 143–164.

McGraw, Daniel. “Fighting Pollution: Toledo Residents Want Personhood Status for Lake Erie.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Feb. 2019, theguardian.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Pain, Nicola, and Rachel Pepper. “Can Personhood Protect the Environment? Affording Legal Rights to Nature.” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, 2021, pp. 315–377.

Pallotta, Nicole. “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights'.” Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, adlf.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Russell, Ruby. “Rights of Nature: Can Indigenous Traditions Shape Environmental Law?” DW.com, Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Shaefer, Stacy J. “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy.” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, pp. 70–86.

Stone, Christopher D. “Should Trees Have Standing—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, 1972, pp. 450-501.

Townsend, Justine, et al. “Rights for Nature: How Granting a River 'Personhood' Could Help Protect It.” The Conversation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 3 June 2021, theconversation.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Zartner, Dana. “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie.” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

The Growing Multifamily Zoning Debate: Local Resistance to State Mandates

By: Alexandra Henriquez

Edited By: Regan Cornelius and Eleanor Bergstein

In early October 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Court heard its first oral arguments from the town of Milton’s attorneys defending it against a lawsuit from the state attorney general over its failure to comply with the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) Communities Act. [1] The act mandates that the 177 municipalities served by the MBTA employ “a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right.” [2] These bylaws require multifamily units to meet specific minimum density, public transportation proximity, and age inclusion provisions. Noncompliance would cause municipalities to lose eligibility for essential state funding programs, such as MassWorks, the Housing Choice Initiative, and the Local Capital Projects Fund, all of which support infrastructure and community development. [3] However, it is essential to note that not all municipalities are assigned the same compliance deadline. “Rapid transit communities,” those with “at least 100 acres of developable station area associated with one or more subway stations, or MBTA Silver Line bus rapid transit stations,” were required to adhere to the act by last December. This consisted of only 12 of the 177 MBTA municipalities. Meanwhile, 130 other communities, known as “commuter rail” and “adjacent” communities, have until the end of 2024 to pass these initiatives. The remaining “smaller adjacent towns” were granted until the end of 2025. [4] As of October 2024, 33 towns have had their zoning plans approved. 139 communities are in interim compliance, meaning the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) has approved their Action Plan, which is in progress; their deadline has not yet passed. [5] Although 172 municipalities are at least in partial compliance, communities like Milton, classified as a rapid transit community, and Holden, an adjacent community, have refused to conform. Most recently, in early November, Millbury residents overwhelmingly voted against a zoning amendment that would comply with the act. [6] 

Considered a reflection of the “American Dream,” single-family housing became popular in the 20th century and was supported by post-World War II policies that facilitated homeownership. Economic growth, suburban expansion enabled by highway development, and zoning laws prioritizing single-family residences reinforced this trend. These zones maintained property values and provided desirable low-density living but also contributed to socio-economic and racial exclusion. Essentially, single-family housing allowed the social-economic control of urban growth. States have the authority to regulate zoning, including single-family zoning, through powers granted by the Tenth Amendment, which allows them to enact laws to promote public welfare. This power is often delegated to local governments via enabling statutes, letting them create zoning ordinances that guide land use, such as residential and commercial zones. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365 (1926)), upheld the constitutionality of zoning as a valid exercise of these powers. [7] Today, many argue that single-family household zoning is to blame for high housing costs, urban sprawl, and segregation, prompting reform efforts in states like California and Oregon that have used this authority to reduce single-family zoning and promote multi-family housing. In 2022, California passed SB 9, which permits the subdivision of single-family lots to allow duplexes or triplexes. [8] In 2019, Oregon also made strides in eliminating exclusionary zoning laws by passing HB 2001, mandating that cities with over 10,000 residents allow for duplexes and triplexes in residential zones. [9] Similarly, Massachusetts has introduced initiatives such as the $4 billion Affordable Homes Act, which includes provisions to incentivize mixed-income multifamily developments. [10]

The lawsuit brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General against the Town of Milton highlights tensions between state and local governments. While states seek to address housing shortages, promote sustainable development, and reduce reliance on car travel, local governments fear losing control over their communities’ specific wants and needs. They express concerns about the strain multi-family housing could place on existing infrastructure, including schools, roads, and public services. Additionally, many municipalities worry about the potential for lower property values and changes to neighborhood aesthetics or community identity, leading to residents’ resistance and political fallout for local officials. [11] 

While both state and local governments acknowledge the urgency of the housing crisis, some local authorities advocate for alternative solutions rather than turning to multi-family housing. Just as this issue crosses the boundaries of local and state policy discussions, it is also a shared concern among both Democrats and Republicans. As we await the decision on Milton, the Massachusetts Supreme Court will be deliberating the extent of the state’s enforcement authority on local governments and the differences between policy “guidelines” and “regulations.” [12] A significant factor at play is the state’s ability to use financial incentives or penalties to encourage compliance from local governments. By taking legal action, the state seeks to reinforce its authority beyond financial encouragement. The outcome of this case could establish a precedent for how far states can go in enforcing compliance from local municipalities.

Notes:

1. Alysha Palumbo and Colin A. Young, “State’s Lawsuit against Milton over MBTA Housing Law Goes Before High Court,” NBC10 Boston, October 7, 2024. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/oral-arguments-monday-in-state-lawsuit-against- milton-over-mbta-housing-law/.

2. Mass. Gen. Laws 40A, § 3A (a)(1), (2021).

3. Mass. Gen. Laws 40A, § 3A (b), (2021).

4.  Annie Jonas, “Map: Deadline Looms for 130 MBTA Communities. What’s next for YourTown,” Boston.com, November 12, 2024, https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/10/17/map-mbta-communities-whats-next-for-your-town/.

5. Sydney Ko, “Map: Who Is - and Isn’t - Complying with the MBTA Communities Act?,” WBUR, October 30, 2024, https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/05/09/mbta-communities-act-zoning-map.

6. Adam Bass, “Millbury Latest Town to Reject MBTA Communities Act Zoning Plan.” MassLive, November 11, 2024, https://www.masslive.com/worcester/2024/11/millbury-latest-town-to-reject-mbta-communities-act-zoning-plan.html.

7. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, (1926)

8. Andrew Bowen, “Three Years into California Duplex Law, San Diego Homeowners Start to Cash In,” KPBS Public Media, October 28, 2024, https://www.kpbs.org/news/quality-of-life/2024/10/28/sb-9-california-duplex-law-san-diego-homeowners.

9. Owen Minott and Julia Selby, “Eliminating Single-Family Zoning and Parking Minimums in Oregon,” Bipartisan Policy Center, September 26, 2023, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/.

10. Karissa Hand, “Governor Maura Healey Signs Most Ambitious Legislation to Address Housing Costs in State History,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts, October 6, 2024, https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-maura-healey-signs-most-ambitious-legislation-to-address-housing-costs-in-state-history.

11. Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “Will States Force Localities to Build Affordable Housing?,” Route Fifty, May 17, 2023, https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2023/05/will-states-force-localities-build-afford able-housing/386465/.

12. Alysha Palumbo and Colin A. Young, “State’s Lawsuit against Milton over MBTA Housing Law Goes Before High Court,” NBC10 Boston, October 7, 2024. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/oral-arguments-monday-in-state-lawsuit-against- milton-over-mbta-housing-law/.
    

Bibliography:

Palumbom, Alysha and Colin A. Young. “State’s Lawsuit against Milton over MBTA Housing Law Goes Before High Court.” NBC10 Boston, October 7, 2024. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/oral-arguments-monday-in-state-lawsuit-against- milton-over-mbta-housing-law/. 

Mass. Gen. Laws 40A, § 3A (a)(1), (2021). 

Mass. Gen. Laws 40A, § 3A (b), (2021).

Jonas, Annie. “Map: Deadline Looms for 130 MBTA Communities. What’s next for YourTown.,” Boston.com, November 12, 2024, https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/10/17/map-mbta-communities-whats-next-for-your-town/.

Ko, Sydney. “Map: Who Is - and Isn’t - Complying with the MBTA Communities Act?,” WBUR, October 30, 2024, https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/05/09/mbta-communities-act-zoning-map.

Bass, Adam. “Millbury Latest Town to Reject MBTA Communities Act Zoning Plan.” MassLive, November 11, 2024, https://www.masslive.com/worcester/2024/11/millbury-latest-town-to-reject-mbta-communities-act-zoning-plan.html.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, (1926)

Bowen, Andrew. “Three Years into California Duplex Law, San Diego Homeowners Start to Cash In,” KPBS Public Media, October 28, 2024, https://www.kpbs.org/news/quality-of-life/2024/10/28/sb-9-california-duplex-law-san-diego-homeowners.

Minott, Owen and Julia Selby. “Eliminating Single-Family Zoning and Parking Minimums in Oregon,” Bipartisan Policy Center, September 26, 2023, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/. 

Hand, Karissa. “Governor Maura Healey Signs Most Ambitious Legislation to Address Housing Costs in State History,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts, October 6, 2024, https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-maura-healey-signs-most-ambitious-legislation-to-address-housing-costs-in-state-history.

Barrett, Katherine and Richard Greene, “Will States Force Localities to Build Affordable Housing?,” Route Fifty, May 17, 2023, https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2023/05/will-states-force-localities-build-affordable-housing/386465/. 

The International Court of Justice’s Involvement in Gender Discrimination in Afghanistan

By: Ameera Hamadeh

Edited by: Clark mahoney and Elissa Rizzo

On September 25th, 2024, Canada, Germany, Australia, and the Netherlands declared their formal plans to call upon Afghanistan in efforts to immediately dismantle their violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). [1] The agreement is the product of over thirty years of work done by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to advance the position of females in newly developed countries. Its contents include a global bill of rights excluding all forms of gender discrimination, and an agenda countries can adopt to take action against female injustice. [2] By announcing their concern, these four nations take the first step towards filing a case with the United Nation’s premiere judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the implications of a court ruling against gender discriminatory actions have remained ambiguous. [3]      

Since its emergence in 1994, the Taliban, an Afghan militant group, has prevented women from exercising fundamental societal rights. Women have been restricted from going to school or pursuing independent study, working, receiving healthcare from men, and leaving the house without a male chaperone. From a societal lens, “women were essentially invisible in public life, imprisoned in their homes” and unable to escape the regime in fear of strict consequences. [4] Today, the Taliban’s levels of discrimination have been classified as “gender persecution” and a “crime against humanity.” [5] As a result, over twenty nations have stated that they do not recognize the Taliban as the formal political leaders of Afghanistan. [6]

Once filed, the case against the Taliban’s leadership will follow the ICJ’s common advisory procedure, a process which may take up to several years to complete. Though the court’s official verdict is important to global humanitarian justice, advisory opinions made by the court are only “consultative in character and are, therefore, not binding as such on the requesting bodies.” [7] As a judicial organization, the ICJ retains no enforcement body to implement their rulings. Instead, the court relies on cooperation from other United Nations states to get the designated entity to adhere to national law. This structure makes it challenging to resolve female subordination in Afghanistan, as the Taliban maintains reign throughout the Afghan state and typically refuses to engage with the international council on human rights issues. [8]

However, a case in alignment with the concerns of these four nations still seems to have indirect, yet imperative, consequences for Afghanistan’s global affairs. Any association with the ICJ will likely coax peer countries towards refusing to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate governing body. A ruling against Afghanistan would make companies less likely to carry out business with the regime due to illegitimacy. Corporations would view business relations with the nation as a scandal that “would tarnish the entire supply chain.” [9] The female discrimination which the Taliban has perpetuated for the past thirty years will not persist without challenge. There are several negative implications for the future of the regime, which work to promote justice and prosperity for women living under these oppressive circumstances.

Notes:

1. Ochab, Ewelina U.“The Taliban To Be Taken Before The International Court Of Justice.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2024. www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2024/09/26/the-taliban-to-be-taken-before -the-international-court-of-justice/.

2. UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly.“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, 18 December 1979.” United States Office of the High Commissioner, December 18, 1979. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-eli mination-all-forms-discrimination-against-women.

3. Ochab, Ewelina U.“The Taliban To Be Taken Before The International Court Of Justice.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2024. www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2024/09/26/the-taliban-to-be-taken-before -the-international-court-of-justice/.

4. “Women in Afghanistan: The Back Story.” Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/womens-rights-afghanistan-history. 

5. Ibid 

6. “Taliban Who Banned Women from Public Spaces Say No One Faces Discrimination in Afghanistan.” The Associate Press, September 26, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-women-legal-rights-gender-discr imination-93f88c497d9851059361fbc83ab8d20d.

7. Couvreur, Philippe.“Upholding the Rule of Law at the International Level: The Role of the International Court of Justice.” United Nations: UN Chronicle, December 31, 2012. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/upholding-rule-law-international-level-rol e-international-court-justice.

8. Ochab, Ewelina U.“The Taliban To Be Taken Before The International Court Of Justice.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2024. www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2024/09/26/the-taliban-to-be-taken-before -the-international-court-of-justice/.

9. Alice Johnson.“Afghanistan: Potential ICJ Case a Step towards Justice for Afghan Women.” International Bar Association, October 24, 2024. https://www.ibanet.org/afghanistan-icj#:~:text=The%20action%2C%20which% 20is%20supported,authorities%20seized%20power%20in%202021.

Bibliography:

Alice Johnson. “Afghanistan: Potential ICJ Case a Step towards Justice for Afghan Women.” International Bar Association, October 24, 2024. https://www.ibanet.org/afghanistan-icj#:~:text=The%20action%2C%20which%20is%20supporte d,authorities%20seized%20power%20in%202021.

Couvreur, Philippe. “Upholding the Rule of Law at the International Level: The Role of the International Court of Justice.” United Nations: UN Chronicle, December 31, 2012. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/upholding-rule-law-international-level-role-international- court-justice.

Ochab, Ewelina U. “The Taliban To Be Taken Before The International Court Of Justice.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2024. www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2024/09/26/the-taliban-to-be-taken-before-the-international -court-of-justice/ .

“Taliban Who Banned Women from Public Spaces Say No One Faces Discrimination in Afghanistan.” The Associate Press, September 26, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-women-legal-rights-gender-discrimination-93f88c 497d9851059361fbc83ab8d20d.

United Nations General Assembly. “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, 18 December 1979.” United States Office of the High Commissioner, December 18, 1979. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-forms -discrimination-against-women.

“Women in Afghanistan: The Back Story.” Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/womens-rights-afghanistan-history.

Donald Trump is Suing CBS News for $10 Billion, Should Free-Speech Lovers Worry?

By: Jared Fischer

Edited by: Jonah Elkowitz and Clark Mahoney

Donald Trump gave CBS News a trick instead of a treat this Halloween. On October 31, the then-Republican nominee for president filed a lawsuit in Texas’ Northern District accusing the news broadcaster of attempting to “confuse, deceive, and mislead” voters by publishing two different versions of Vice President, then Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris’s answer to a question she was asked during her interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes last month. The difference between the two responses is striking. In one response, included as part of the full interview broadcasted on Monday, October 7, Harris gives a short, succinct, and mostly effective answer to interviewer Bill Whitaker’s question about the relationship between American and Israeli leadership. In her response to the same question that was published in a preview of the interview released on Sunday, October 6, however, Harris stumbles to find a clear message. The discrepancy in the quality of Harris’s answer between the two clips caused a stir online, and fueled further criticisms about the VP’s poor ability to answer difficult questions on the spot. It also happens to be the reason for the Trump campaign's most recent lawsuit, which seeks up to $10 billion in damages from CBS for what the Republican President is portraying as the media company’s covert attempt to portray Kamala Harris in a more positive light than in reality. [1]  

News of the lawsuit comes in the wake of a greater cultural conversation about the state and role of free expression in America. College campus movements and ensuing protests around the nation have stimulated new legal questions about the extent of free speech in academic settings. Similarly, members of both major American political parties have centered speech issues in their appeals to voters during the 2024 presidential campaign. For instance, Trump, along with many conservatives, has characterized some politicians’ attempts to combat so-called Covid-19 “misinformation” on social media as government censorship, in addition to other efforts to pressure companies like Meta and Twitter to take a more active role in cenosring content on their platforms deemed false by third-party “fact-checkers.” [2] Democrats, on the other hand, point to Trump’s history of demonizing, delegitimizing, and threatening media organizations as proof of his opposition to free speech principles. [3]

Politics aside, Donald Trump has a real and extensive history of taking legal action against unfavorable media coverage. In March, he filed a lawsuit against ABC, ABC News, and host George Stephanopoulos over comments the news anchor made about writer E. Jean Carroll’s successful civil case against the 45th president where she accused the president of sexual assault and then lying about their encounter. [4] The lawsuit concerned Stephanopoulos’s statement that Donald Trump was found liable for rape in the New York-based case, when the jury only determined the Republican president liable for sexual assault. ABC eventually settled the case with President Trump for $15 million. Nonetheless, Trump’s attempts at legal retribution have been generally unsuccessful. The President has failed to retrieve damages from lawsuits against CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. [5]

All of President Trump’s past lawsuits against media organizations sought damage for what he considered to be defamation. What makes Trump v. CBS significant, however, is that Trump has accused CBS of consumer deception, not defamation. Many jurisdictions around the country have legal protections in place to protect against consumer deception by penalizing businesses’ use of misleading communications practices to advertise products to consumers. Yet, in Trump’s recently filed consumer deception lawsuit, which specifically cites Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Kamala Harris herself is the product, CBS the deceitful proprietor, and the American people the consumers. [6] 

Despite this creative interpretation of anti-consumer deception law and engaging in what some commentators have referred to as “judge shopping”–choosing where to file suit based on the perceived friendliness of the region’s judiciary system–most legal experts believe that Trump’s lawsuit against CBS is likely to fail, given its flimsy logic and problematic relationship with the Supreme Court’s general understanding of press freedom. [7] Though, it should not take an expert to recognize the blatant insincerity of a case that demands $10 billion in damages for consumer deception, especially considering Trump and the Republicans’ 2024 electoral win. Instead, the suit is more likely a symbol of MAGA’s bitterness toward mainstream media and the perceived hostility towards the right-wing movement’s leader. Trump engages in fraught legal battles with the media to fight back against what he and his most passionate supporters see as a corrupt media class, notwithstanding the low likelihood of success. 

Even if objections to CBS’s editorial decisions in its 60 Minutes interview with Harris remain—the broadcasting company’s refusal to release the full, unedited transcript of the meeting does raise some valid questions about the organization’s impartiality—attacking the media’s ability to editorialize content as they see fit through legal action is clearly problematic. [8] Although CBS says Trump’s claims about the integrity of Harris’s responses are completely false, the First Amendment should protect the right of press organizations to make decisions about what content to include in broadcasts, even if these decisions are considered by some, but especially partisans, to be misleading. [9]

While Donald Trump is likely to be unsuccessful in his bid to punish CBS News for protected expression, attempts by the government to censor free speech in the name of “consumer protection” are a very real phenomenon in many parts of the United States, and can be especially burdensome for institutions that are not well equipped to fight back. [10] Texas, where Trump filed his lawsuit against CBS, is an epicenter of these sorts of anti-speech proceedings. The state’s Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton was the subject of a recent ProPublica investigation on the subject. The investigation identified a concerning pattern that involved Paxton invoking the state’s strong consumer protection law to investigate, and sometimes prosecute, private organizations that facilitated speech perceived as hostile to the goals of Texas’s political leaders. [11] The use of consumer-protection laws to stifle free expression is incredibly concerning. 

As the American political mainstream turns increasingly adverse to First Amendment principles, it is up to the courts and, ultimately, the American people, to remain vigilant in the face of government censorship, wherever it comes from. In America, the way to rebuff poor media behavior is critique, not ligation. And, as it turns out, Donald Trump did not need the help of courts to marginalize his adversaries in the news. The democratic process completed the job for him.

Notes:

1. Trump v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00236, U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (currently pending) [Accessed December 1, 2024]. 

2. Zweig, David. “How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate.” The Free Press. The Free Press, December 26, 2022. https://www.thefp.com/p/how-twitter-rigged-the-covid-debate.

3. Stern, Seth. “Trump will try to destroy press freedom. We won’t let him.” Freedom of the Press Foundation. Freedom of the Press Foundation, November 6, 2024. https://freedom.press/issues/trump-will-try-to-destroy-press-freedom-we-wont-let-him/. 

4. Kates, Graham and Katrina Kaufman.  “Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation.” CBS News. CBS Broadcasting Inc, March 21, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-suing-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-defamation/.

5. CBS News Staff. “Trump sues CBS News over 60 Minutes with Harris.” CBS News. CBS Broadcasting Inc, October 31, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sues-cbs-news-60-minutes-interview/.

6. Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46 (1972), https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm.

7. Passantino, Jon and Rashard Rose. “Trump sues CBS over ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Harris.” CNN. CNN, November 1, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/media/trump-cbs-lawsuit-harris-60-minutes-interview/index.html. 

8. The Editors. “‘60 Minutes’: Release the Unedited Kamala Harris Transcript.” The Free Press. The Free Press, October 12, 2024.  https://www.thefp.com/p/60-minutes-release-the-unedited-kamala.

9. CBS News Staff. “Trump sues CBS News over 60 Minutes with Harris.”

10. Vogus, Caitlin. “Censoring news does not protect consumers.” Freedom of the Press Foundation. Freedom of the Press Foundation, November 5, 2024. https://freedom.press/issues/consumer-protection-law-censorship/.

11. Davila, Vianna. “Here are the organizations that Ken Paxton targeted using consumer protections laws.” ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, May 30, 2024.  https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/30/texas-ken-paxton-consumer-protection-law-investigations/.

Bibliography:

CBS News Staff. “Trump sues CBS News over 60 Minutes with Harris.” CBS News. CBS Broadcasting Inc, October 31, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sues-cbs-news-60-minutes-interview/.

Davila, Vianna. “Here are the organizations that Ken Paxton targeted using consumer protections laws.” ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, May 30, 2024.  https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/30/texas-ken-paxton-consumer-protection-law-investigations/.

Kates, Graham and Katrina Kaufman.  “Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation.” CBS News. CBS Broadcasting Inc, March 21, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-suing-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-defamation/.

Passantino, Jon and Rashard Rose. “Trump sues CBS over ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Harris.” CNN. CNN, November 1, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/media/trump-cbs-lawsuit-harris-60-minutes-interview/index.html.

The Editors. “‘60 Minutes’: Release the Unedited Kamala Harris Transcript.” The Free Press. The Free Press, October 12, 2024.  https://www.thefp.com/p/60-minutes-release-the-unedited-kamala.

Stern, Seth. “Trump will try to destroy press freedom. We won’t let him.” Freedom of the Press Foundation. Freedom of the Press Foundation, November 6, 2024. https://freedom.press/issues/trump-will-try-to-destroy-press-freedom-we-wont-let-him/. 

Trump v. CBS Broadcasting Inc, No. 2:24-cv-00236, U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (currently pending) [Accessed December 1, 2024].

Vogus, Caitlin. “Censoring news does not protect consumers.” Freedom of the Press Foundation. Freedom of the Press Foundation, November 5, 2024. https://freedom.press/issues/consumer-protection-law-censorship/.

Zweig, David. 2022. “How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate.” The Free Press. https://www.thefp.com/p/how-twitter-rigged-the-covid-debate.