S TANDING Standing is roughly defined as a limitation on who can bring lawsuits so that only the appropriate party brings suit for an alleged wrong in federal court When Ps claims about agency action arise under a statute, P has two standing issues: P must show constitutional standing (threshold reqmt) P must show legislative standing current approach to legislative standing is governed by the test from Assn of Data Processing Serv. Orgs. v. Camp

D ATA P ROCESSING - THE ZONE OF I NTERESTS T EST Sec. 4 of the Bank Serv. Corp. Act bars bank service corps from providing any service other than bank services for banks Comptroller of Currency allowed national banks to provide data processing services incident to national banking services P (data processing providers) sued claiming that CofCs decision violated Section 4 Data Processings approach: Did P allege Ds actions cause P injury-in-fact? Constitutional inquiry Is the interest sought to be protected by P arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee. APA inquiry

APA § 702 AFTER D ATA P ROCESSING Data Processings zone of interest test collapsed the legal wrong & special review statute requirements of Sec. 702 into one inquiry: Is the plaintiffs interest within the zone of interests the relevant statute is meant to protect? It is clear now that the term relevant statute in § 702 no longer needs to be a special review statute. Plaintiff need only fall w/in the zone of interests to be protected by the substantive protections of the organic statute at issue. But special review standing provisions allowing citizen suits under a statute can illuminate who is w/in the zone of interests as well. See Bennett v. Spear

Z ONE OF I NTERESTS APPLIED AFTER D ATA P ROCESSING SCT has generously interpreted the zone of interests requirement for legislative standing Only rarely has it held someone outside the zone of interests Inquirys focus: Are Ps interests are marginally related and not inconsistent with the purposes of statutes P seeks to enforce SCT may look for implicit purposes of statutes (Clarke) BUT may not look at JUST ANY statute to find purposes. Statutes must be related to issue over which P is suing (Air Courier) Role of special review statute If an organic statute has a broad standing provision (i.e., any person can bring suit), SCT is willing to allow such suits even if they seems inconsistent w/the purpose of statute E.g., Bennett v. Spear (p. 308)

C ONSTITUTIONAL S TANDING – (L UJAN V. D EFENDERS OF W ILDLIFE ) Constitutional Standing: A threshold requirement for all federal litigants – must meet it to bring suit in federal court (but its only the first issue if suing under a statute) 3 Requirements of Constitutional Standing: Injury-in-Fact – concrete and particularized invasion of legally protected interest Injury must be fairly traceable to Ds conduct – need a causal connection between injury complained of & Ds behavior Injury must be one that can be redressed in court – must be likely that a favorable court decision will help P

C ONSTITUTIONAL S TANDING - I NJURY - IN -F ACT P must show she has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury personal to her What kinds of injuries suffice? Injuries to common law, constitutional or statutory rights Aesthetic, environmental, recreational harms and competitive economic harms What government action do the Lujan Ps challenge and how does it harm them? Why didnt Lujan Ps satisfy the injury-in-fact prong on these allegations? What would they need to do to satisfy the majority? Does this make sense or is it an empty formality as the dissent argues?

C ONSTITUTIONAL S TANDING - C AUSATION Injury must be fairly traceable to Ds conduct – need a causal connection between injury & Ds behavior Assume the Lujan Ps did have plane tickets, could they have shown that their harm was fairly traceable to the governments action? If a consultation provision applies and USAID funds are stopped to overseas projects, what is likely to happen to the project if the those funds are stopped? How does that affect the causation issue? How does SCT approach this issue as a causation or redressability issue?

C ONSTITUTIONAL S TANDING - R EDRESSABILITY Can the injury complained of be redressed by a favorable court decision? Why did Lujan hold that the injury alleged could not be redressed w/ court action? Is it plausible to assume that govt actors w/ knowledge of a court order and statutory requirements of consultation wouldnt perform that obligation (even if they werent parties to the lawsuit)?

I NJURY - IN - FACT & PROCEDURAL RIGHTS The ESA had a citizen suit provision giving any person the right to commence a civil suit for violations of the ESA Textually this is a broad provision (as the appellate court seemed to read it) Why did Lujan held that mere violation of procedural reqmts (e.g., reqmt to consult w/ other agencies) did not confer standing on Ps (especially absent other injury)? Who is the court trying to protect? Why? Is it right? Note: Ps may have standing if can show violation of procedural reqmt would injure another concrete interest I.e., failure to follow procedures in licensing hearing may result in denial of license I.e., failure to issue environmental impact statement (EIS) before building a federal dam

M ASSACHUSETTS V. EPA Mass. brought lawsuit to force EPA to begin rulemaking proceeding re greenhouse gases under CAA. Two bases for majoritys finding that Massachusetts had standing: Special solicitude for Massachusetts as a State Traditional 3-prong inquiry

S PECIFIC Q UESTIONS IN M ASS. V. EPA What kind of special status should a state have, if any, as a plaintiff in standing analysis? Application of Lujans prongs? Is the dissent right that the majority has loosened Lujans standing requirements? Did Mass. have an injury-in-fact? To what extent does it matter that global warming is, well, global? And its harms are going to happen in the future – how does that matter? Is the injury distinguishable from Lujans? How do causation and redressability work out here – who has the better argument?