http://www.oyez.org/issues/judicial-power/direct-injury/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>Do voters have the proper legal standing to challenge the Federal Election Commission's decisions regarding political committees?</p><p>Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that voters seeking information, to which they believe FECA entitles them, have standing to challenge the FEC's decision not to bring an enforcement action. Because FECA seeks to address the voters' injury, the failure to obtain relevant information, Justice Breyer concluded that the voters had prudential standing. Furthermore, because the voters' inability to obtain information constitutes an "injury in fact," continued Justice Breyer, the voters had standing under Article III. The Court did not address the FEC's major purpose test, allowing the FEC to address the issue under newly proposed rules. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas joined.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_1590/ <p>Do the respondents have standing to sue?</p><p>No. Even if the Court were to assume that the agency-funded projects at issue threatened listed species, there was no proof that these actions would produce "actual or imminent" injuries to particular respondents who might some day wish to visit the foreign countries in question. The Court disregarded the proposed theory of "ecosystem nexus" which claimed that any person who used any part of of a "contiguous ecosystem" adversed affected by a funded activity had standing to sue.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1424/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_1124/ <p>Does an environmental organization have standing to bring suit against companies that fail to meet the Emergency Planning And Community Right-To-Know Act Of 1986's deadlines for filing toxic- and hazardous-chemical storage and emission reports? Does the EPCRA authorize suits for purely past violations?</p><p>No and the Court did not answer the question. In an opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held, because none of the relief sought would likely remedy its alleged injury in fact, that Citizens For A Better Environment lacked standing to maintain suit and that the Court and lower federal courts lack the jurisdiction to entertain it. While all nine Justices agreed that the organization lacked standing, they disagreed on the reasons. Lacking jurisdiction, the Court declined to answer whether the EPCRA authorizes suits for purely past violations. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Stephen G. Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote concurring opinions.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_643/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1034/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_2024/