Jim Whitney
Economics 495
Case summary brief (2-page maximum)
Recorder name:
Case name:
Citation; Date:
Court:
Mary Bemis
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Name (if specified) and description of litigants at the original trial court level
Plaintiff:
Defenders of Wildlife
Defendant:
Lujan
Facts of the case:
The Defenders of Wildlife sued the government because they saw harm to endangered species in
certain proposed projects to take place abroad. They (Joyce Kelly and Amy Skilbred) claimed they would
be harmed if they were no longer able to observe these at-risk endangered species, and such actions
would violate the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Procedural history (remedy sought, prior rulings, grounds for appeal, etc., as available):
The District Court dismissed the suit for a lack of standing, but the Court of Appeals reversed this. Upon
revision, the judgment was reversed in favor of the Defenders of Wildlife.
Court opinion (key issues and arguments):
Justice Scalia finds that the Defenders of Wildlife, who bear the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate an
actual injury as being denied the access to endangered species was not sufficient. 3 elements must be
present for a standing to be issued; “injury in fact,” “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical’”
harm, and a “causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.” The plaintiffs fail to
meet these requirements, and in addition it is found that simply saying they plan to return to visit these
animals is not significant enough to rule for future harm.
Dissenting opinion, if any (key issues and arguments):
Justice Blackmun and Justice O’Connor find that Joyce Kelly and Amy Skilbred had sufficient standing in
the case and that the projects did in fact pose a threat to these endangered species. The justices find that
the fact that the women have visited these sites of endangered species once already, together with their
professional backgrounds, enough to provide likeliness of a return trip. They also caution against a
precedence that would create a more formalized proof of future harm.
Disposition of case:
The judgement for the defendant was reversed and the case was remanded.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
1. Course topic of the case:
Torts
2. How does the case relate to the course topic?
This case “illustrates the necessity of harm in order to have a standing to file a tort suit. The court
requires that a plaintiff ‘has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct
injury’”
3. Which previously assigned cases, if any, are related to this case, and how does this one differ?
This is the very first case assigned regarding torts.
4. How does the case affect economic incentives and efficiency?
This provides clarity to the idea of actual harm, which when analyzing economically is important to
decide the utility of the victim. By definition, you are “harmed” if your utility is lowered and you
move to a lower indifference curve. The goal of the court is to minimize this effect.