Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the secretary of the interior or secretary of commerce before engaging in actions that might jeopardize endangered or threatened species. In 1978, a joint interior and commerce regulation stated that the consultation requirement extended to agency actions in foreign nations. However, in 1986, a revised regulation stated that the consultation requirement applied only to actions in the United States or on the high seas. Wildlife-protection organizations (plaintiffs) sued Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan (defendant), seeking a declaratory judgment that the new regulation was incorrect and an injunction requiring Lujan to reinstate the original rule extending consultation to agency actions abroad. Lujan moved for summary judgment, arguing the organizations lacked standing. The organizations made several standing arguments. First, they provided affidavits from two organization members attesting that the members had viewed specific endangered species abroad, planned to return to the same areas eventually, and would be less likely to see the species upon revisiting because of agency projects. Second, the organizations offered animal-nexus and vocational-nexus theories, under which any person with an interest in studying or working with an endangered species has standing to address agency projects impacting that species globally. Finally, the organizations argued that they had standing based on the ESA’s citizen-suit provision, which expressly allowed any person to file a civil suit to enjoin anyone, including government entities, from violating the ESA. The district court concluded that the organizations had standing and granted summary judgment to the organizations on the merits. The court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.