Community Empowerment and Environmental Ordinances in the United States: A Study

Dotto, Valentina (2025) Community Empowerment and Environmental Ordinances in the United States: A Study. Doctoral thesis, Birmingham City University.

Preview

Text Valentina Dotto PhD _Thesis_Final Version_Final Award January 2025.pdf - Accepted Version Download (5MB)

Abstract

In the aftermath of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010, there has been a notable increase in corporate lobbying efforts aimed at influencing State legislatures.¹

The ruling effectively expanded corporate influence in politics by equating financial spending with free speech, opening the door for corporations to exert greater control over legislative agendas. One notable consequence of this shift has been the suppression of municipal powers, as corporations increasingly lobby state governments to preempt or override local regulations that conflict with their interests.

Municipalities, as subordinate entities to their state governments, often seek to assert themselves by using the regulatory powers granted to them to make political or social statements, such as enacting environmental protections, labour laws, or anti-discrimination ordinances. However, corporations—armed with more political influence post Citizens United —have successfully pushed state legislatures to pass preemption laws that prevent municipalities from enacting policies that could hurt business interests. This dynamic creates a significant tension between local governments attempting to reflect the values of their communities and state governments, which may be more susceptible to corporate influence. Consequently, the ability of municipalities to enact meaningful local regulations is often stifled.

In some instances, local government municipalities have responded in what may be regarded as typical US fashion, by employing the ideals of “We the People of the United States,” to advance their own political agenda through local action.² They have done so using their regulatory powers and specifically their powers to enact municipal ordinances as a tool for change, endeavouring to rebalance the power dynamics that exist among local, state, and federal levels.³

Central to this thesis is an exploration of a series of ordinances which have been put in place by municipalities for political purposes but which, in legal terms, have had very little chance of withstanding challenges in the courts, and their connection with a not-for profit organisation –the Community Environmental Legal Defence Fund (CELDF). This thesis seeks to uncover the extent to which CEDLF has served as the conduit through which these municipalities have channelled their activism.⁴

To this end, I have compiled a dataset of municipal ordinances that challenge corporate influence and aim to grant rights to nature. This thesis argues that the primary purpose of these ordinances is to assert the right to local democracy, with many of the municipalities involved drawing heavily on the guidance and experience of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). ⁵ As a result, the reader will also find a significant focus on the work and ethos of CELDF, in fact, this research places significant emphasis on CELDF’s work and its role in helping local communities develop what are known as Community Bills of Rights (CBRs), which serve as the foundation for the CBRs I have examined.

CELDF’s capacity to assist communities expanded after 2006, when the organisation grew to include national, state, and local chapters. This growth allowed CELDF to engage more directly with communities through initiatives like the “Democracy School.” At these sessions, participants are encouraged to explore ways to address the constitutional power imbalance between states and municipalities and to confront corporate influence on state legislatures. Topics covered include strategies such as revoking legal personhood for corporations and formulating, enacting, and protecting local community rights. ⁶

After attending Democracy School, participants can collaborate with CELDF’s legal experts to address their specific concerns by drafting a Community Bill of Rights tailored to their needs and circumstances. This process has been instrumental in shaping the ordinances featured in this research.7

The municipal ordinances or CBRs, that I have assembled are of interest for two specific reasons. First they grant rights to nature or natural phenomena. This is in itself sufficient to make them of interest. As my research discovered, the recent attempts to confer legal or constitutional rights upon natural phenomena that we have seen specifically in Ecuador and now elsewhere in South America owed much to the work of CEDLF which pioneered this strategy in Pennsylvania with the Tamaqua Ordinance that I discuss in Chapter 1.

The second main focus of my interest is that though seemingly granting rights to natural entities, these ordinances, or CBRs are, in essence, bold affirmations of community rights to self-determination.⁸ Laden with an anti-corporate ethos, the ordinances, challenge established norms and boldly assert that the bedrock commitment of the US Constitution should be interpreted through the lens of prioritizing localism, self-governance, and self-determination.⁹ Specific features take the form of attempts a to confer legal “standing” sufficient to support an action in the courts upon “residents”, thereby apparently seeking to create an Actio Popularis, or citizens’ action which will enable public-minded citizens to enforce the rights which the ordinances purport to confer. These include rights to take nonviolent direct action as a legal enforcement tool, to secure sanctuary from the state and federal violation of conferred rights and to ensure that corporations that have not been banned from their territory are subjected to fair taxation.¹⁰ Because of these bold assertions, the ordinances are unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny.¹¹

This thesis ventures to explore the driving forces behind the municipal ordinances’ enactment, their dynamic evolution over time in terms of values and strategy, and what these municipal ordinances or CBRs tell in terms of US political practices.

This thesis investigates US municipal activism, aided by the Community Environmental Legal Defence Fund (CELDF), through municipal ordinances known as Community Bills of Rights (CBRs) as instruments for change.

First, it explores the interaction between the current trend of constitutionalising rights of nature and local legislative activism, emphasizing the convergence of Roman law principles and indigenous jurisprudential traditions in granting rights of nature, especially the recognition of community rights. It also highlights CELDF's influence in shaping Ecuadorian constitutional provisions on rights of nature and the shift from mere environmental protection to recognizing local communities' rights over their natural resources.

Second, it discusses and then compares current scholarship on adversarial activism against (what is termed) legislative activism. Doing so highlights the distinctive nature of legislative activism within the adversarial framework and offers a better understanding of the methods and motivations behind the municipal legislative activism influenced by CELDF's values.

Finally, it dissects CBRs as legislative instruments and examines claims made by CELDF, seeking to understand the widespread adoption of ordinances purportedly granting rights of nature, despite having been legally challenged several times. This sheds light on the motivations behind the CBRs, revealing connections to themes such as anti-corporatism, limited government, and assertions of local democracy and self-determination. The analysis redefines CELDF's role as a radical grassroots movement advocating for Police Powers' recognition by municipalities.

In summary, this thesis underscores the importance of safeguarding local communities' rights. While the focus appears centred on recognizing rights of nature, the essence lies in empowering local communities and preserving their control over their environment. By advocating for the community's right to local self-governance, CELDF aims to enable municipalities to secure local communities' rights in local decision-making. This perspective has profound implications for legal advocacy, governance structures, and social justice in the US, emphasizing the paramount importance of localism and community empowerment.

¹ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 913 (2010).
² Bruce Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 THE YALE LAW JOURNAL 453 (Dec. 1989), p. 456.
³ Christopher B Goodman, Megan E Hatch, Bruce D McDonald III, State Preemption of Local Laws: Origins and Modern Trends, 4 PERSPECTIVES ON PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE, Issue 2 (2021).
⁴ CELDF Community Rights Pioneers Protecting Nature and Communities, CELDF (2020), https://celdf.org/.
⁵ CELDF -Where We Work, CELDF, https://celdf.org/where-we-work/.
⁶ Richard L. Grossman, The Daniel Pennock Democracy School Curriculum (Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund 2005).
⁷ Thomas Linzey, We The People : Stories From the Community Rights Movement in the United States (Oakland, California: Pm Press 2016).
8 On this see for instance, Simon Davis-Cohen, Dismantling Corporate Control Isn’t a Spectator Sport: An Interview with Thomas Linzey, In These Times, (Mar. 15, 2016) https://inthesetimes.com/article/thomas-linzey-interview-on-corporate-control-and-community-rights.
9 Id.
10 On this, however, CELDF’s list is not exhaustive, I will show this in more detail in chapter three.
11 On this see for instance, Peggy Kirk Hall, Ellen Essman, Evin Bachelor, The Lake Erie Bill of Rights Ballot Initiative, In the Weeds Digging into current legal issues with OSU Extension’s Farm Office, (2018). https://www.greatlakeslaw.org/files/LEBOR_OSU_Extension_Ag_Law_Analysis.pdf.

Item Type:	Thesis (Doctoral)
Dates:	Date Event 13 January 2025 Accepted
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Citizens United, corporate lobbying, state preemption, municipal ordinances, CELDF, rights of nature, local democracy, self-governance.
Subjects:	CAH15 - social sciences > CAH15-01 - sociology, social policy and anthropology > CAH15-01-03 - social policy CAH15 - social sciences > CAH15-03 - politics > CAH15-03-01 - politics CAH16 - law > CAH16-01 - law > CAH16-01-01 - law
Divisions:	Doctoral Research College > Doctoral Theses Collection Law and Social Sciences > Criminology and Sociology > Criminology
Depositing User:	Louise Muldowney
Date Deposited:	05 Aug 2025 11:40
Last Modified:	05 Aug 2025 11:40
URI:	https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/16557

Actions (login required)

View Item