## Facts

- A private developer proposed a 307-foot observation tower on privately owned land near, but outside, Gettysburg National Military Park.
- The Commonwealth, acting through the Governor and Attorney General, filed an equity action seeking to enjoin construction.
- The Commonwealth alleged the tower would harm the area’s natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic values and relied on Article I, § 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Environmental Rights Amendment), which declares environmental rights and makes the Commonwealth a trustee of public natural resources.
- The Commonwealth presented witnesses who opined the tower would be detrimental to Gettysburg’s historic and scenic setting.
- The developer asserted the tower would be aesthetically acceptable and would provide educational and recreational benefits to visitors.
- The trial court found the Commonwealth failed to show by clear and convincing proof that the tower would injure the relevant environmental values and denied a permanent injunction.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, and the Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Article I, § 27 authorizes the Governor and Attorney General, without implementing legislation, to sue to enjoin private construction alleged to impair protected environmental values.
2. Whether the Commonwealth proved by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed tower would cause irreparable injury to the natural, scenic, historic, or aesthetic values of the Gettysburg environment sufficient to justify an injunction.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the order denying injunctive relief.
- A plurality concluded Article I, § 27 was not self-executing for purposes of this executive-initiated enforcement action and required legislative implementation to supply enforceable standards and mechanisms.
- A concurrence rejected the plurality’s non-self-executing view and would recognize Commonwealth authority to sue as parens patriae or trustee, but agreed the Commonwealth failed to prove irreparable harm by clear and convincing evidence.
- A justice concurred only in the result.
- A dissent would have treated § 27 as self-executing and would have reversed, concluding the trial court’s no-injury finding was reviewable and wrong.

## Legal Principles

- A court may deny environmental injunctive relief where the plaintiff fails to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, irreparable injury to protected environmental values.
- Under the plurality view, Article I, § 27 expresses constitutional commitments but requires legislative implementation before it can serve as the sole basis for an executive-initiated suit seeking to stop private development.
- Under the concurring view, the Commonwealth may act as parens patriae and as trustee of public resources to protect environmental values, but equitable relief still depends on sufficient proof and the application of articulated standards.
- Fragmented opinions may yield a controlling result without a single majority rationale.

## Conclusion

The court allowed construction of the private observation tower to proceed by affirming denial of an injunction, with separate opinions dividing over whether Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment is directly enforceable without legislation and over how courts should apply equitable proof requirements in constitutional environmental protection suits.


Pennsylvania v. Nat’l Gettysburg Battlefield Tower, Inc., 454 Pa. 193, 311 A.2d 588 (Pa. 1973)