Facts of the Case
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (S7(a)(2)) required federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any authorized actions did not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or critically destroy natural habitats. A 1986 amendment to the act limited it scope to actions in the United States or on the high seas. Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the new amendment erred by providing for a geographic limit on the original law.
Questions
Do the respondents have standing to sue?
Conclusions
-
No. Even if the Court were to assume that the agency-funded projects at issue threatened listed species, there was no proof that these actions would produce "actual or imminent" injuries to particular respondents who might some day wish to visit the foreign countries in question. The Court disregarded the proposed theory of "ecosystem nexus" which claimed that any person who used any part of of a "contiguous ecosystem" adversed affected by a funded activity had standing to sue.
Standing Doctrine and Original Meaning at the Alabama Supreme Court
Within certain limits,[1] our federalist system leaves states free to give their branches of...
Of Beetles and Babies: The Possible Futures for Standing after FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue a decision in FDA v. Alliance for...
ADA Testers Can Keep Testing . . . For Now
On December 5, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett...
TransUnion, Article III, and Expanding the Judicial Role
Federalist Society Review, Volume 23
In 2021’s TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court confirmed that Article III standing requires a...
Docket Watch: Hunsucker v. Fallin
With certain limited exceptions, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has in the past followed the U.S....
Should Judges Judge?: The Affordable Care Act, Subsidies, and Judicial Engagement
Engage Volume 15, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article is about D.C. Circuit’s decision in Halbig v. Burwell...
The States and the NLRB: A Study in Comparative Sovereignty
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
Under a system of government that diffuses power and makes institutional “[a]mbition . . ....
Roger Clegg reviews The Demise of Environmentalism in American Law by Michael S. Greve
Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996
Michael Greve is cofounder and executive director of the Center for Individual Rights, an organization...