Mr. Adam Boyle:

It is unclear from their wording as to how this creates an impetus on the State. Article 45 has traditionally been non-justiciable. They have indicated an intention to place language in Article 45 that is specifically justiciable. If there is any question about unforeseen circumstances, it may be about the idea of creating a justiciable right within an area that has never previously been justiciable.

At the same time, it is wholly unclear who they are expecting to take this litigation. It would be far more complicated to challenge a plan of a State as opposed to an individual failure on such a fundamental level as would be in a right under the proposed Article 40A. I would like to hear Dr. Casey's comments on that as well.