This chapter addresses the question whether the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution to include a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable environmental threats. Although the U.S. Constitution includes no statement of a right to a clean environment, strong arguments exist for affording constitutional protection in this arena despite the silence. While courts generally limit protections in this area to enforcing statutory rights, the judiciary has the authority to act when statutory protections fail. Rather than following a pre-determined path of application of constitutional rights in an a priori fashion, The Supreme Court and other courts affirmatively protect the fundamental right to individual dignity and autonomy necessary to ordered liberty rather than waiting for legislatures to establish such rights. As the Obergefell made clear, “[f]undamental rights may not be submitted to a vote,” and do not depend on elections. Just as the Court responded to state action prohibiting the right of same-sex couples to marry, it should see the fundamental right to life and liberty includes a right to be free from unreasonable environmental harm without waiting for legislative protection. Today’s world includes imminent environmental risks to public health that the Framers could not imagine. Nonetheless, in setting forth protections against unreasonable governmental action, they set in motion a framework of judicial protection of fundamental rights when the legislative process fails to provide such protections. Indeed, there can be no case or controversy allowing review judicial of a claim of a fundamental right except when the legislature response fails to afford such protection.