The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires federal agencies to consult the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce before undertaking actions that could jeopardize endangered species or critically destroy natural habitats. The citizen-suit provision provides that any person may file a civil suit in order to address violations of the Endangered Species Act. In 1978 the Secretaries decided that the act’s consultation requirement extended to federal actions taken outside of the United States as well. An amendment that limited the application of this act to solely the United States and the “high seas” was adopted in 1986. Beginning December 3rd, 1991, and decided June 12th, 1992, the case of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife involved the Defenders of Wildlife (among other wildlife protection interest groups), filing an action against the Secretary of the Interior, Manuel …show more content…
soil and the high sees would stand, and, whether Secretary Lujan would face the consequence of an injunction. Do the Defenders of Wildlife have standing to challenge
the Secretary’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act? Do the Defenders of Wildlife have grounds to demand that the Endangered Species Act be reverted back to its original terms?
Holding:
Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit under the Endangered Species Act’s citizen-suit provision, because the threat of a species' extinction failed to establish proof of a non-hypothetical and actually transpiring private injury.
Rationale:
In order for plaintiffs to have standing, someone must have suffered an actual, discernible injury. In order to establish standing the plaintiffs would have had to 1. Shown evidence of an injury in fact, 2. Shown causality between the conduct of Secretary Lujan and said harm, and 3. Convinced the court that a favorable verdict would redress this harm.