Administrative law principles and applications

Administrative Law

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Facts: Lujan, the secretary of the Interior is representing the federal government. Defenders of Wildlife is an organization that exists for the purpose of protecting endangered animals. In 1973 the federal government enacted Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, which was originally designed to protect endangered species in the United States and foreign nations. However, the law was scaled back to only apply to the United States and the high seas. Defenders of Wildlife filed a lawsuit to enjoin Lujan to reinstate the older phrasing of the rule. The case was dismissed at the district court level for lack of standing, the 8th circuit court of appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court granted cert.

Issue: What must a party show to prove standing?

Decision: In order to show federal standing, the party must prove that there was actual injury suffered. The injury must be actual meaning a concrete, physical event.

Reasoning: The court ruled that the parties had not shown standing because none of the members were actually harmed by actions done to endangered species abroad. In order to establish standing, the parties must have established that at least on member of their group would suffer actual harm due to the actions of businesses abroad.

Dissent: Justice Blackmun argued that the court mistakenly raised the burden for standing from a "genuine issue" standard to an "actual or imminently harmed" standard.

Analysis: I agree with the majority. The Defenders of Wildlife had no evidence that a single member of the group suffered any physical or financial harm due to the restricting of the law. While the organization may not have agreed with the government's decision, the government has not harmed any of them, so there is no reason to sue.

1a. In order for a lawsuit to be legitimate, there must be proof of harm, otherwise there was no wronged party and the parties involved cannot site or prove anything. In fact, without standing damages or potential damages cannot even be enumerated for argument.

1. Iron triangles are historically Unconstitutional and are a detriment to democracy because neither the government agencies nor the regulations implemented are created by elected officials whom the people can hold accountable.

2. The Clean Air Act does not properly dictate the EPA's role in setting standards because the standards they are assigned to set so drastically effects the private sector and the agency cannot take cost into consideration. Congress should enact limitations clearly defining the extent of the EPA's role.

3. In the Benzene case it was inappropriate to give an agency so much power. Congress does have the expertise to be very specific and if they do not, they can obtain the information from expert consultants.