Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
- Decided
- June 12, 1992
- Docket
- 90-1424
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 24,791 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that to satisfy the traceability requirement, the injury must not result from the independent action of some third party not before the court — Tandy v. City of Wichita (2004)
- holding that standing is an indispensable part of the plaintiffs case for establishing “federal jurisdiction” — United States Ex Rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Electric Co. (2003)
- holding that “the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” includes suffering an “injury in fact” that is “actual or imminent” — Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, and IY, and an opinion with respect to Part III-B, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join.
This case involves a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior interpreting § 7 of the Endangered [*558] Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 87 Stat. 892, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1586, in such fashion as to render it applicable only to actions within the United States or on the high seas. The preliminary issue, and the only one we reach, is whether respondents here, plaintiffs below, have standing to seek judicial review of the rule.
I
Statutes cited
- 16 U.S.C. § 1586
- 16 U.S.C. § 1531
- 16 U.S.C. § 1533
- 16 U.S.C. § 1536
- 16 U.S.C. § 1540
Cite this
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.