Standing Doctrine in Environmental Cases Was Always Too Strict. After the Ballroom Case, It's Impossible
In Monday's per curiam opinion in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation , the 5-4 majority said that a setback to an aesthetic interest in observing historic sites (such as the White House before Trump took his wrecking ball to it) is not a sufficient injury to confer Article III standing on an individual or group of which that individual is a member. The dissent by Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court's three Democratic appointees argued that the per curiam misapplied the Court's standing precedents, especially Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife . The dissent is correct. The Lujan Court said that indefinite plans to visit a region in the hope of observing members of an endangered species are not a sufficient interest under Article III but, citing earlier cases upholding standing for environmental plaintiffs, the Lujan Court acknowledged that someone with a particular professional or other interest in an animal species would have standing to...