| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.)
says the Dept of Interior mest promulgate a list of endangered
creatures, and then all federal agencies are required to
be sure that their actions aren't likely to jeopardize any
of those creatures.
The US plans to give aid to Egypt in constructing a dam, and this might affect Nile crocodiles. |
| Posture: | Not clear; summary judgment for secretary of the Interior at lower court, overturned on appeal? |
| Issue: | Do the plaintiffs have standing to seek judicial review of this action? |
| Holding: | No. This doesn't rise to the "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" |
| Rule: | The plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact to a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized (i.e., affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way), and be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. |
| Reasoning: | The fact that tourists might not get to see the crocodiles if they were to return in the future is hypothetical. Standing isn't just an "exercise in the conceivable." The court's function is to decide on the rights of individuals; the legislative and executive branches are there to take care of the public interest. To convert the general public interest in executive compliance with the law into an individual right with standing to sue would effectively move all executive power to the courts, by giving the courts authority over all the acts of the executive branch. |
| Dicta: | |