BELLEFONTE — When Pennsylvania voters head to the polls on Nov. 4, they’ll weigh in on the future of the state’s highest court.
Three of the seven justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are up for retention, a process in which voters choose “yes” or “no” to decide whether each judge should get another 10 years on the bench.
The state Supreme Court has played a central role in shaping policies that directly impact rural communities, where agriculture is a main industry and public lands are plentiful.
Here’s a look at how the court’s rulings have influenced rural Pennsylvania.
Agriculture
Case: Gilbert v. Synagro Central, LLC
Why it matters: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that using biosolids — nutrient-rich, treated material from wastewater plants — as fertilizer counts as a “normal agricultural operation” under the state’s Right to Farm Act.
Summary: In 2008, York County residents sued Synagro Central, Synagro Mid-Atlantic, and two local farmers after biosolids were applied to nearby farmland. The plaintiffs alleged offensive odors — described by one as smelling “like a herd of dead, rotting deer” — and claimed it caused runny noses, burning eyes, sore throats, and skin irritation.
The defendants argued they were protected under the Right to Farm Act, which shields “normal agricultural operations” that have been conducted without substantial change for at least one year. The case reached the state Supreme Court, which ruled the biosolid use qualifies as a “normal agricultural operation.”
The decision had implications beyond farming, said Brook Duer, a staff attorney at Penn State’s Center for Agricultural and Shale Law. Local governments that operate their own sewer plants had “a very acute interest” in the case as well, he said.
“There has to be a place to put these,” Duer told Spotlight PA of biosolids.
He noted that throwing them in landfills wastes their nutrients, and landfills are becoming more expensive and less willing to accept them.
Case: Berner v. Montour Township Zoning Hearing Board
Why it matters: This case tested how far local governments can go in regulating farming practices that are already covered by state law.
Summary: A Columbia County farmer in 2013 applied to build a hog nursery barn with a manure storage facility in Montour Township. The municipality has an ordinance requiring the applicant to submit “facility designs and legally binding assurances” to show that operations won’t have adverse impacts — such as water contamination, smells, or noise — on nearby properties.
Under Pennsylvania’s Nutrient Management Act, only larger agricultural operations — classified as concentrated animal operations — are required to develop such a plan. Because this farm was smaller than the threshold set by state law, it was not subject to that requirement. The farmer filed a special exception application that the township’s zoning board approved — but with conditions based on the local ordinance.
After appeals, the case made it to the state Supreme Court, which held that the Nutrient Management Act preempts the local ordinance’s adverse impact requirement.
“That was important because … had it not turned out that way, we would have started to see a lot of townships getting into attempting to regulate the very, very intimate details of farming operations for which they don’t have expertise,” Duer said.
The state government’s nutrient management regulations and other policies regulating agricultural operations are reviewed by trained experts, whereas municipalities likely lack the technical staff to oversee detailed requirements, he added.
Environment
Case: Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Why it matters: This landmark 2013 decision gave teeth to Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment, which provides a constitutional right to clean air and water, and the preservation of the environment.
Summary: The state Supreme Court struck down parts of Act 13, a 2012 law that made sweeping changes to Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry regulations.
Several municipalities, environmental groups, and advocates challenged the law, arguing that it violated the state’s Environmental Rights Amendment, which was largely viewed as symbolic prior to this case.
In a plurality decision (where no single legal opinion has majority support, but one opinion has the most support), then-Chief Justice Ronald Castille authored the opinion in which the Supreme Court declared three measures unconstitutional, including provisions that preempted local ordinances and required the state to issue waivers in certain circumstances for drilling near wetlands and other ecologically sensitive areas.
The case “revitalized” the Environmental Rights Amendment, Lauren Gailey, an assistant law professor at Duquesne University, told Spotlight PA. The court also made clear that the provision created a public trust, with the state government as the trustee, she noted.
“The people of Pennsylvania are the beneficiaries, and the commonwealth has a duty to prevent the degradation and diminution of public natural resources,” Gailey said.
Case: Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Why it matters: This case reaffirmed that the constitutional protections provided by the Environmental Rights Amendment cannot be altered through legislation.
Summary: The nonprofit Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation sued the state for its practice of directing revenue from drilling on state-owned land into the general fund instead of putting the money toward the good of the environment.
The nonprofit challenged the allocation of those dollars as violating the Environmental Rights Amendment and argued that the state and its agencies are trustees responsible for protecting the commonwealth’s public natural resources for current and future generations.
After years of litigation bouncing between the Commonwealth and Supreme Courts, the latter issued decisions in 2017 and 2021. The high court reaffirmed that the Environmental Rights Amendment creates a public trust and ruled that revenue generated from public natural resources must be used for conservation and preservation.
Stormwater charges
Case: The Borough of West Chester v. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
Why it matters: This case could determine whether stormwater charges, which are used by some municipalities to fund related infrastructure, are considered fees or taxes.
Summary: In 2016, the Borough of West Chester created a stormwater charge based on how much impervious and paved surface — like roofs and sidewalks — a property has.
West Chester University refused to pay its roughly $130,000 bill, arguing the charge was actually a tax, and as a state-owned institution, it was exempt.
Commonwealth Court agreed with the university, finding that the charge functioned more like a tax than a fee for service. The borough appealed, and the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments last fall. A decision is still pending.
All types of communities have enacted these charges across Pennsylvania. But for rural areas, where municipalities tend to have a more limited tax base to generate revenue, the money can help fund costly stormwater infrastructure and maintenance projects.