Abstract
In United States v. Washington, the Ninth Circuit considered a series of treaties called the Stevens Treaties between the Washington state government and a group of twenty-one Native American nations in the pacific northwest. The court held that embedded in a treaty right to take fish was a promise by the Washington state government that fish would still exist in that region. This case ultimately required the state government to protect the region’s fish against environmental degradation. In the age of climate change, this case provides a model for states like Maine to impose a duty on the state government to prevent further environmental degradation. Maine is both particularly well-adapted to enjoy the benefits of the Washington precedent and vulnerable to climate change. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than almost any other ocean surface on the planet. The accelerated warming along the coast of the state coupled with the state’s reliance on lobster as an economic resource makes the state of Maine particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change if preventative measures are not taken. This Note analyzes the way Washington can be analogized to Maine’s constitutional right to food and the way that the inclusion of the term “harvest” imposes a duty on the state government to take affirmative steps to slow the warming of the Gulf of Maine.
First Page
347
Recommended Citation
Rachel Fischer,
It’s Getting Hot in Here: Maine’s Right to Food as a Mechanism to Address the Impact of the Warming of the Gulf of Maine on Lobster,
76
Me. L. Rev.
347
(2024).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol76/iss2/8