Questions Presented
(1) Whether, in conflict with the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Dombeck, 164 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 1999), and this Court’s decision in Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997), the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that claimants seeking to protect economic interests lack prudential standing to challenge an agency’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
(2) Whether, in conflict with the D.C. Circuit’s decisions in National Association of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 417 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1996), and this Court’s decision in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (2010), the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that a claimant who engages in efforts to protect the environment lacks prudential standing to challenge an agency’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act solely because the claimant has an economic motivation for engaging in environmental protection efforts.
Case Updates
Cert. petition denied
June 03, 2013
U.S. Chamber argues plaintiffs seeking to protect their economic interests should have opportunity to be heard
March 01, 2013
The U.S. Chamber urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that federal courts are closed to plaintiffs acting to protect their economic interest by challenging agency action under NEPA. This decision represents another dramatic departure by the Ninth Circuit from that of other circuit courts of appeal, which have found plaintiffs acting to protect their economic interests have standing. The Chamber argued in its amicus brief that this decision creates an arbitrary regime in which plaintiffs can bring suit in some parts of the country but not others. The Chamber pointed out that Congress did not intend NEPA to be a completely one-sided - a statute which may be invoked solely by “environmentally-friendly” organizations, while shutting out those with economic concerns about environmental regulation. The Chamber also argued that under the Ninth Circuit's rule, litigants who are concerned about the economic impact of potentially devastating economic losses lack standing to hold federal agencies accountable for unlawful conduct.