Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Citation: 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1992)
Facts
The Endangered Species Act required federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure their actions did not jeopardize listed species. An Interior Department regulation limited this consultation requirement to agency actions in the United States and on the high seas, excluding overseas projects. Defenders of Wildlife sued, arguing the exclusion was unlawful. The organization’s members had traveled to Egypt and Sri Lanka to observe endangered species that would be affected by overseas U.S.-funded development projects.
Issue
Do environmental organization members have Article III standing to challenge the geographic limitation of the ESA consultation requirement when their claimed injury is the diminished ability to observe endangered species in foreign countries?
Holding
The Supreme Court, 6-3, held that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Members’ affidavits stating they had visited areas affected by overseas projects and intended to return “someday” were insufficient to establish a concrete, imminent injury in fact. The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate redressability, as the agencies funding the projects were not parties and might not comply even if the regulation were invalidated.
Rule
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct (causation/traceability); and (3) likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable court decision (redressability). A generalized interest in seeing that the law is obeyed, or speculative future harm, is insufficient.
Significance
Lujan is the leading case on constitutional standing and the most important statement of the three-part standing test. The decision significantly limits who can sue to enforce environmental and other regulatory statutes, rejecting “citizen suit” standing based on diffuse, generalized interests. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion reinforces the view that Article III standing doctrine constrains Congress’s ability to confer broad rights of action. The case is paired with Massachusetts v. EPA to explore the breadth and limits of the standing doctrine.