Lexplug logoLexplug

Bennett v. Spear

United States Supreme Court
520 U.S. 154 (1997)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Endangered Species Act's citizen-suit provision, which authorizes 'any person' to sue, negates the prudential 'zone of interests' standing test, extending standing to the full extent permitted by Article III. Additionally, plaintiffs alleging economic injury due to environmental regulations fall within the zone of interests of the ESA's substantive provisions for purposes of bringing a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act.


Facts:

  • Petitioners, two Oregon irrigation districts and the operators of two ranches, receive water from the Klamath Project, a federal reclamation scheme administered by the Bureau of Reclamation.
  • In 1988, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed two species of fish, the Lost River Sucker and the Shortnose Sucker, as endangered.
  • In 1992, the Bureau of Reclamation consulted with the FWS over concerns that the operation of the Klamath Project might adversely affect the endangered suckers.
  • The FWS issued a Biological Opinion concluding that the long-term operation of the project was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the fish.
  • The Biological Opinion identified 'reasonable and prudent alternatives' to avoid jeopardy, which included maintaining minimum water levels in two reservoirs that are part of the project.
  • The Bureau of Reclamation notified the FWS of its intent to operate the project in compliance with the Biological Opinion's recommendations.
  • Petitioners alleged that complying with the minimum water level requirements would substantially reduce the quantity of irrigation water available to them, thereby harming their commercial, recreational, and aesthetic interests.

Procedural Posture:

  • The petitioners, two irrigation districts and two ranchers, filed suit against the Secretary of the Interior and officials of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the U.S. District Court.
  • The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the petitioners' economic interests did not fall within the 'zone of interests' protected by the Endangered Species Act.
  • The petitioners, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal, holding that only plaintiffs who allege an interest in the preservation of endangered species fall within the ESA's zone of interests.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do plaintiffs who allege economic and commercial injuries from the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act have standing to challenge a Biological Opinion under either the Act's citizen-suit provision or the Administrative Procedure Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

Yes. Plaintiffs alleging economic harm have standing to sue under both the ESA's broad citizen-suit provision, which negates the zone of interests test, and under the Administrative Procedure Act, because their economic interests are within the zone of interests protected by the ESA's substantive provisions. The Court reasoned that the ESA's citizen-suit provision, which states 'any person may commence a civil suit,' is an authorization of 'remarkable breadth' that Congress intended to expand standing to the full extent permitted by Article III, thereby negating prudential barriers like the 'zone of interests' test. For claims not covered by the citizen-suit provision but brought under the APA, the Court held that the zone-of-interests test looks to the specific statutory provision allegedly violated, not the overall purpose of the statute. The ESA's requirement to use the 'best scientific and commercial data available' is intended not only to protect species but also to avoid 'needless economic dislocation' from arbitrary agency action, meaning petitioners' economic interests are arguably protected by that provision. The Court also found that the Biological Opinion constituted 'final agency action' because it had direct and appreciable legal consequences, altering the legal regime for the Bureau of Reclamation and carrying a powerful coercive effect.



Analysis:

This decision significantly broadened the scope of standing to challenge agency actions under the Endangered Species Act. By holding that the ESA's 'any person' citizen-suit provision negates the zone-of-interests test, the Court opened the courthouse doors to plaintiffs with economic interests, not just environmental ones. Furthermore, its application of the zone-of-interests test under the APA—focusing on the specific provision violated rather than the statute's overarching purpose—creates a pathway for regulated parties to challenge the scientific and economic basis of agency decisions. The ruling empowers those economically harmed by environmental regulations to hold agencies accountable for 'overenforcement,' establishing that the ESA contains protections for both species and economic actors.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bennett v. Spear (1997)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"