US Supreme Court Issues Environmental Standing Decision

The US Supreme Court, in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, has addressed the issue of standing to bring suit against federal agencies. Standing is an esoteric, but important, feature of environmental law. Persons who are going to challenge federal actions must have standing to bring the suit - it isn't enough to simply claim you don't like something the government has done.

Lots has been written on standing, and this decision is not the most comprehensive, nor will it be the last, discussion of the subject. Briefly stated, Article III of the US Constitution limits the judiciary to redressing or preventing actual or threatened injuries, and courts will only consider the claims of plaintiffs with a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. This is often done by individuals filing affidavits to the effect that regulations (in this case, US Forest Service regulations, but it would apply to EPA regulations as well) will adversely affect their enjoyment of certain activities, such as hiking, boating, or viewing the landscape. Organizations like the Earth Island Institute can assert their members' standing.

This case was a little more complex, because Earth Island Institute had filed suit to stop a specific timber sale at Burnt Ridge, as well as the regulations that allowed such timber sales elsewhere. Earth Island resolved the Burnt Ridge portion of the lawsuit, but wanted to proceed with the lawsuit as to the regulations as a whole. The Supreme Court decided that the affidavits submitted by Earth Island members only showed a particularized interest in the Burnt Ridge project, and once that claim was resolved none of the affidavits offered by Earth Island members showed concrete plans to visit one of the other sites that could have been affected by the regulations. Therefore, Earth Island had lost standing to challenge the regulations. It submitted additional affidavits, but these came in too late to be considered.

These standing cases are interpretations of the US constitution, and states are free to be more generous in allowing plaintiffs to bring actions in state court. However, many environmental cases, such as mountaintop mining permits, involve federal agency approvals such as Section 404 fill permits issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and therefore standing decisions are closely watched.


Take a look at the Syllabus of the decision, which presents a quick summary of the majority (5-4) decision. You might also want to look at this article by Dustin Till of the Marten Law Group who does a fine job analyzing the decision.