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.
A Seat at the Sitting - October 2025
The October Docket in 90 Minutes or Less
Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting...
Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency
In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean...
Remedies in Presidential Removal Cases: A Shifting Landscape
The Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen represented a paradigm shift. Now, in cases...
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...
New Voices in Administrative Law II: The Supreme Court and Federal Court Jurisdiction
The development of standing jurisprudence has been inextricably intertwined with the growth of the administrative...
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...
Case Preview: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer - Considering ADA “Tester” Standing
In the fall 2023 term, the Court is currently set to consider a case of...
A Seat at the Sitting - February 2023
The February Docket in 90 minutes or Less
Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket...
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...
