Bennett v. Spear
- Decided
- March 19, 1997
- Docket
- 95-813
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,786 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds, overruled in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · WildEarth Guardians v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
What later courts said
- recognizing that the injury-in-fact concept "does not exclude injury produced by determinative or coercive effect upon the action of someone else” — Bronson v. Swensen (2007)
- holding that parties who “have competing economic and other interests” in a certain water supply could challenge agency action reducing that supply in the aggregate — Shays v. Federal Election Commission (2005)
- concluding that a legislative act expanded standing “to the full extent permitted under Article III” — Tanner Advertising Group, L.L.C. v. Fayette County (2006)
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
[*157] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a challenge to a biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 87 Stat. 884, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1531 et seq., concerning the operation of the Kla-math Irrigation Project by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the project’s impact on two varieties of endangered fish. The question for decision is whether the petitioners, who have competing economic and other interests in Klamath Project water, have standing to seek judicial review of the biological opinion under the citizen-suit provision of the ESA, § 1540(g)(1), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 80 Stat. 392, as amended, 5 U. S. C. § 701 et seq.
I
Statutes cited
- 16 U.S.C. § 1531
- 5 U.S.C. § 701
- 16 U.S.C. § 1533
- 16 U.S.C. § 1536
- 43 U.S.C. § 371
- 5 U.S.C. § 706
- 16 U.S.C. § 1540
- 5 U.S.C. § 704
- 33 U.S.C. § 1365
- 30 U.S.C. § 1270
And 7 more sections cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)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.