Bennett v. Spear
Citation and Court
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). United States Supreme Court.
Facts
Oregon ranchers and irrigation districts challenged a biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which concluded that lower water levels in certain reservoirs would jeopardize the coho salmon. The Bureau of Reclamation adopted the opinion’s “reasonable and prudent alternatives,” which required higher water levels that reduced water available for irrigation. Plaintiffs argued the opinion was arbitrary and brought suit under both the ESA citizen-suit provision and the APA.
Issue
(1) Whether the ranchers had standing under the APA’s zone-of-interests test, and (2) whether the biological opinion constituted “final agency action” subject to APA review.
Holding
The Supreme Court held unanimously that the ranchers had standing under the APA’s zone of interests and that the biological opinion was final agency action. The Court articulated a two-part finality test and clarified that the zone-of-interests requirement is not especially demanding.
Rule / Doctrine
Finality test (two parts): Agency action is final when it (1) marks the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process and is not tentative or interlocutory, and (2) is one by which rights or obligations have been determined or from which legal consequences will flow. Zone of interests: The APA’s zone-of-interests requirement is satisfied if the plaintiff’s interests are “arguably within the zone of interests” protected by the relevant statute; it is not a demanding standard.
Significance
Bennett v. Spear is the leading case on APA finality and the zone-of-interests test. It confirms that regulated parties (not just environmental groups) can challenge agency action under the ESA, broadening who has standing to contest agency decisions. The two-part finality test is widely applied to determine whether agency action is ripe for judicial review.