Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

rdf:langString Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

rdf:langString

rdf:langString Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior, Petitioner v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al.

rdf:langString Blackmun

rdf:langString O'Connor

rdf:langString Rehnquist, White, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas

rdf:langString U.S. Const. Art. III;

rdf:langString Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

rdf:langString Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior, Petitioner v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al.

rdf:langString 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.

rdf:langString Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

rdf:langString Scalia

rdf:langString 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." 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. In Lujan, the Court held that a group of American 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. The case arose over issues of US funding of development projects in Aswan, Egypt and Mahaweli, Sri Lanka that could harm endangered species in the affected areas. The government declared that the act did not apply to projects outside of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife sued.

rdf:langString Stevens

rdf:langString Kennedy

rdf:langString Souter

rdf:langString Rehnquist, White, Thomas

rdf:langString Scalia