Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
ArgueDate=December 3
ArgueYear=1991
DecideDate=June 12
DecideYear=1992
FullName=Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior, Petitioner v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al.
USVol=504
USPage=555
Citation=112 S. Ct. 2130; 119 L. Ed. 2d 351; 60 U.S.L.W. 4495; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3543; 34 ERC (BNA) 1785; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4985; 92 Daily Journal DAR 7876; 92 Daily Journal DAR 8967; 22 ELR 20913; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 374
Prior=Defendant's motion to dismiss granted, "Defenders of Wildlife v. Hodel", 658 F.Supp. 43 (D. Minn. 1987); reversed and remanded, 851 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1988); summary judgment granted to plaintiffs, 707 F. Supp. 1082 (D. Minn. 1988); affirmed, "sub nom." "Defenders of Wildlife v. Lujan", 911 F.2d 117 (8th Cir. 1988); cert. granted, 500 U.S. 915 (1991)
Subsequent=None
Holding=Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit under the Endangered Species Act, because the threat of a species's extinction alone did not establish an individual and nonspeculative private injury. Eighth Circuit reversed.
SCOTUS=1991-1993
Majority=Scalia (parts I, II, III-A, IV)
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, White, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
Concurrence=Scalia (part III-B)
JoinConcurrence=Rehnquist, White, Thomas
Concurrence2=Kennedy
JoinConcurrence2=Souter
Concurrence3=Stevens
Dissent=Blackmun
JoinDissent=O'Connor
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. art. III; UnitedStatesCode|16|1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973)

"Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife", ussc|504|555|1992, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a group of wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge regulations jointly issued by the U.S. Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, regarding the geographic area to which a particular section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 applied.

Said Lily Henning of the "Legal Times"::In [this] decision, hailed by the right and attacked by the left as well as by a broad swath of legal scholars, the Court made clear that plaintiffs must suffer a concrete, discernible injury—not a "conjectural or hypothetical one"—to be able to bring suit in federal court. It, in effect, made it more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge the actions of a government agency when the actions don't directly affect them. [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122627917320]

Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia stated that Defenders had failed to satisfy Constitutional requirements for “injury in fact” that would grant standing under the Endangered Species Act. He wrote that the Court rejected the view that the citizen suit provision of the statute conferred upon “all persons an abstract, self-contained, non-instrumental ‘right’ to have the Executive observe the procedures required by law”. Rather, he explained, the plaintiff must have suffered a tangible and particular harm, not unlike the requirement in common law.

Justice Scalia has subsequently asserted that a plane ticket to the affected geographic areas would have been enough to satisfy the imminent threat of future injury requirement of "City of Los Angeles v. Lyons".

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 504

External links

*wikisource-inline|Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
*caselaw source
case="Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife", 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./504/555/
altlaw=http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1382358