Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife | |
---|---|
Holding | |
Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit under the Endangered Species Act, because the threat of a species' extinction alone did not establish an individual and nonspeculative private injury. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia (Parts I, II, III-A, IV), joined by Rehnquist, White, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
Plurality | Scalia (Part III-B), joined by Rehnquist, White, Thomas |
Concurrence | Kennedy (in part and in judgment), joined by Souter |
Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
Dissent | Blackmun, joined by O'Connor |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. Art. III; 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) |
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision, handed down on June 12, 1992, that heightened standing requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution. It is "one of the most influential cases in modern environmental standing jurisprudence."[1] Lily Henning of the Legal Times stated that:
- 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.[2]
In Lujan, the Court held that a group of
Opinion
In Scalia's interpretation of Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in fact, caused by the defendant, which a favorable court decision could redress, to meet the standing requirement to bring a case before the court.
Additionally, in the portion of his opinion that garnered only plurality support, Justice Scalia determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the redressability element.[7]
In his opinion concurring in part, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justice David Souter, asserted that an airline ticket to the affected geographic areas with endangered species in question would have been enough to satisfy the imminent threat of future injury requirement.[8]
Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the judgement as well, but disagreed with the Court's finding that Defenders lacked standing.[9] Justice Stevens instead rested his opinion on a statutory construction of the Endangered Species Act.[10]
Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissented from the majority, stating first that the respondents have raised genuine issues of fact, and second that that the majority opinion imposed new limitations to bringing suit.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 504
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
- ^ "Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife—Can Environmental Litigants Regain Ground to Stand on Using the "Ecosystem Nexus" Test for Causation, Redressibility?". Vermont Law Review. March 29, 2015. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
- ^ Henning, Lily. "Roberts and Scalia: Standing Side by Side". law.com. Retrieved July 20, 2012.(subscription required)
- ^ Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
- ^ Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562.
- ^ Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573.
- ^ Lujan, 504 U.S. at 574.
- ^ Lujan, 504 U.S. at 568.
- ^ Lujan, 504 U.S. at 578-80.
- ^ Lujan, 504 U.S. at 582.
- ^ Lujan, 504 U.S. at 586.
External links
- Works related to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife at Wikisource
- Text of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Case Brief for Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife at Lawnix.com
- Full Text of Volume 504 of the United States Reports at www.supremecourt.gov